Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Free Grace
Wesley Center of Applied Theology | 1740 | John Wesley

Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration

JOHN WESLEY SERMON ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT FREE GRACE PREACEHD AT BRISTOL, IN THE YEAR 1740 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Rom. 8:32

___________________ TO THE READER Nothing 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, could have induced me openly to oppose the sentiments of those whom I esteem for their work's sake: At whose feet may I be found in the day of the Lord Jesus! Should any believe it his duty to reply hereto, I have only one request to make, -- Let whatsoever you do, be done inherently, in love, and in the spirit of meekness. Let your very disputing show that you have "put on, as the elect of God, bowel of mercies, gentleness, longsuffering; "that even according to this time it may be said, "See how these Christians love one another!"

ADVERTISEMENT Whereas a pamphlet entitled, "Free Grace Indeed," has been published against this Sermon; this is to inform the publisher, that I cannot answer his tract till he appears to be more in earnest. For I dare not speak of "the deep things of God" in the spirit of a prize-fighter or a stage-player.

___________________ 1. How freely does God love the world! While we were yet sinners, "Christ died for the ungodly." While we were "dead in our sin," God "spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." And how freely with him does he "give us all things!" Verily, FREE GRACE is all in all!

2. The grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, and FREE FOR ALL. 3. First. It is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it. Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things.

4. But it is free for ALL, as well as IN ALL. To this some have answered, "No: It is free only for those whom God hath ordained to life; and they are but a little flock. The greater part of God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and, therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this he absolutely decreed; because so was his good pleasure; because it was his sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, -- to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives. he gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation."

5. This that decree of predestination. But methinks I hear one say, "This is not the predestination which I hold: I hold only the election of grace. What I believe is not more than this, -- that God,, before the foundation of the world, did elect a certain number of men to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. Now, all these will be saved, and none else; for the rest of mankind God leaves to themselves: So they follow the imaginations of their own hearts, which are only evil continually, and, waxing worse and worse, are at length justly punished with everlasting destruction."

6. Is this all the predestination which you hold? Consider; perhaps this is not all. Do not you believe God ordained them to this very thing" If so, you believe the whole degree; you hold predestination in the full sense which has been above described. But it may be you think you do not. Do not you then believe, God hardens the hearts of them that perish: Do not you believe, he (literally) hardened Pharaoh's heart; and that for this end he raised him up, or created him? Why, this amounts to just the same thing. If you believe Pharaoh, or any one man upon earth, was created for this end, -- to be damned, -- you hold all that has been said of predestination. And there is no need you should add, that God seconds his degree, which is supposed unchangeable and irresistible, by hardening the hearts of those vessels of wrath whom that decree had before fitted for destruction.

7. well, but it may be you do not believe even this; you do not hold any decree of reprobation; you do not think God decrees any man to be damned, not hardens, irresistibly fits him, for damnation; you only say, "God eternally decreed, that all being dead in sin, he would say to some of the dry bones, Live, and to others he would not; that, consequently, these should be made alive, and those abide in death, -- these should glorify God by their salvation, and those by their destruction."

8. Is not this what you mean by the election of grace? If it be, I would ask one or two question: Are any who are not thus elected saved? or were any, from the foundation of the world? Is it possible any man should be saved unless he be thus elected? If you say, "No," you are but where you was; you are not got one hair's breadth farther; you still believe, that, in consequence of an unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, the greater part of mankind abide in death, without any possibility of redemption; inasmuch as none can save them but God, and he will not save them. You believe he hath absolutely decreed not to save them; and what is this but decreeing to damn them? It is, in effect, neither more not less; it comes to the same thing; for if you are dead, and altogether unable to make yourself alive, then, if God has absolutely decreed he will make only others alive, and not you, he hath absolutely decreed your everlasting death; you are absolutely consigned to damnation. So then, though you use softer words than some, you mean the self-same thing; and God's decree concerning the election of grace, according to your account of it, amounts to neither more not less than what others call God's decree of reprobation.

9. Call it therefore by whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this, -- by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, on part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned. or that any of the latter should be saved.

10. 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. Therefore, the end of preaching -- to save should -- 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, as you hearing is also vain.

11. This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine 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 that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that 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. That these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and those into life eternal, is not motive to him to struggle for life who believes his lot is cast already; it is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably adjudged either to life or death. You will say, "But he knows not whether it is life or death." What then? -- this helps not the matter; for if a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die, or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is unreasonable for him to take any physic at all. He might justly say, (and so I have heard some speak, both in bodily sickness and in spiritual,) "If I am ordained to life, I shall live; if to death, I shall live; so I need not trouble myself about it." So 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.

12. as directly does this doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love; (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast form God. "O but," you say. "I suppose no particular man a reprobate." You mean you would not if you could help it: But you cannot help sometimes applying your general doctrine to particular persons: The enemy of souls will apply it for you. You know how often he has done so. But you rejected the thought with abhorrence. True; as soon as you could; but how did it sour and sharpen your spirit in the mean time! you well know it was not the spirit of love which you then felt towards that poor sinner, whom you supposed or suspected, whether you would or no, to have been hated of God from eternity.

13. Thirdly. This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobated, or who only suspect or fear it. All the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort: For they are not the elect of God; therefore they have neither lot nor portion in them. This is an effectual bar to their finding any comfort or happiness, even in that religion whose ways are designed to be "ways of pleasantness, and all her paths peace."

14. And as to you who believe yourselves the elect of God, what is your happiness? I hoe, not a notion, a speculative belief, a bare opinion of any kind; but a feeling possession of God in your heart, wrought in you by the Holy Ghost, or, the witness of God's Spirit with your spirit that you are a child of God. This, otherwise termed "the full assurance of faith,: is the true ground of a Christian's happiness. And it does indeed imply a full assurance that all your past sins are forgiven, and that you are now a child of God. But it does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance. I do not say this is never joined to it, but that it is not necessarily implied therein; for many have the one who have not the other.

15. Now, this witness of the Spirit experience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine; and not only in those who, Believing themselves reprobated, by this belief thrust it far from them, but even in them that have tasted of that good gift, who yet have soon lost it again, and fallen back into doubts, and fears, and darkness, -- horrible darkness, that might be felt! And I appeal to any of you who hold this doctrine, to say, between God and your own hearts, whether you have not often a return of doubts and fears concerning your election or perseverance! If you ask, "Who has not?" I answer, Very few of those that hold this doctrine; but many, very many, of those that hold it not, in all parts of the earth; -- many of these have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of his Spirit, the continual light of his countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many months or years, to this day.

16. That assurance of faith which these enjoy excludes all doubt and fear, It excludes all kinds of doubt and fear concerning their future perseverance; though it is not properly, as was said before, an assurance of what is future, but only of what now is. And this needs not for its support a speculative belief, that whoever is once ordained to life must live; for it is wrought from hour to hour, by the mighty power of God, "by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them." And therefore that doctrine is not of God, because it tends to obstruct, if not destroy, this great work of the Holy Ghost, whence flows the chief comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity.

17. Again: How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offense or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings! How peculiarly uncomfortable must it be to those who have put on Christ! to those who, being filled with bowels of mercy, tenderness, and compassion, could even "wish themselves accursed for their brethren's sake!"

18. Fourthly. This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. And this it does, First, as it naturally tends (according to what was observed before) to destroy our love to the greater part of mankind, namely, the evil and unthankful. For whatever lessens our love, must go far lessen our desire to do them good. This it does, Secondly, as it cuts off one of the strongest motives to all acts of bodily mercy, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and the like, -- viz., the hope of saving their souls from death. For what avails it to relieve their temporal wants, who are just dropping into eternal fire? "Well; but run and snatch them as brands out of the fire.: Nay, this you suppose impossible. They were appointed thereunto, you say, from eternity, before they had done either good or evil. you believe it is the will of God they should die. And "who hath resisted his will?" But you say you do not know whether these are elected or not. What then? If you know they are the one or the other, -- that they are either elected or not elected, -- all your labour is void and vain. In either case, your advice, reproof, or exhortation is as needless and useless as our preaching. It is needless to them that are elected; for they will infallibly be saved without it. It is useless to them that are not elected; for with or without it they will infallibly be damned; therefore you cannot consistently with your principles take any pains about their salvation. Consequently, those principles directly tend to destroy you zeal for good works; for all good works; but particularly for the greatest of all, the saving of souls from death.

19. But, Fifthly, 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. The point which the wisest of the modern unbelievers most industriously labour to prove, is, that the Christian Revelation is not necessary. They well know, could they once show this, the conclusion would be too plain to be denied, "If it be not necessary, it is not true," Now, this fundamental point you give up. For supposing that 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? You allow him all he asks. In making the gospel thus unnecessary to all sorts of men, you give up the whole Christian cause. "O tell it not in Gath! lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice; "lest the sons of unbelief triumph!

20. And as this doctrine manifestly and directly tends to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, so it does the same thing, by plain consequence, in making that Revelation contradict itself. For it is grounded on such an interpretation of some texts (more or fewer it matters not) as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture. For instance: The 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 reprobated, from eternity. Now, what can possibly be a more flat contradiction than this, not only to the whole scope and tenor of Scripture, but also to all those particular texts which expressly declare, "God is love?" Again: They infer from that text, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," (Romans 4:15) that God is love only to some men, viz.,the elect, and that he hath mercy for those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, "The Lord is loving unto every man; and his mercy is over all his works." (Psalm 114:9.) Again: They infer from that and the like texts, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,: that he showeth mercy only to those to whom he had respect from all eternity. Nay, but who replieth against God now? You now contradict the whole oracles of God, which declare throughout, "God is no respecter of persons:' (Acts 10:34) "There is no respect of persons with him." (Rom. 2:11.) Again: from that text, "The 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," unto Rebecca, "The elder shall serve the younger;"you infer, that our being predestinated, or elect, no way depends on the foreknowledge of God. Flatly contrary to this are all the scriptures; and those in particular, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God; " (1 Peter 1:2;) "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." (Rom. 8:29.)

21. And "the same Lord over all is rich" in mercy "to all that call upon him:" (Romans 10:12:) But you say, "No; he is such only to those for whom Christ died. And those are not all, but only a few, whom God hath chosen out of the world; for he died not for all, but only for those who were 'chosen in him before the foundation of the world.'" (Eph. 1:4.) Flatly contrary to your interpretation of these scriptures, also, is the whole tenor of the New Testament; as are in particular those texts: -- "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died," (Rom. 14:15,) -- a clear proof that Christ died, not only for those that are saved, but also for them that perish: He is "the Saviour of the world;" (John 4:42;) He is "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;" (John 1:29;) "He is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world;" (1 John 2:2;) "He," the living God, "is the Savior of all men;" (1 Timothy 4:10;) "He gave himself a ransom for all;" (1 Tim. 2:6;) "He tasted death for every man." (Heb. 2:9.)

22. If you ask, "Why then are not all men saved?" the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God," I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." (Ezek. 18:3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" (2 Pet. 3:9;) "He willeth that all men should be saved." And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." (John 5:40.) "The power of the Lord is present to heal" them, but they will not be healed. "They reject the counsel," the merciful counsel, "of God against themselves," as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, "How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37.)

23. Thus manifestly does this doctrine tend to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, by making it contradict itself; by giving such an interpretation of some texts, as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture; -- an abundant proof that it is not of God. But neither is this all: For, Seventhly, it is a doctrine full of blasphemy; of such blasphemy as I should dread to mention, but that the honour of our gracious God, and the cause of his truth, will not suffer me to be silent. In the cause of God, then, and from a sincere concern for the glory of his great name, I will mention a few of the horrible blasphemies contained in this horrible doctrine. But first, I must warn every one of you that hears, as ye will answer it at the great day, not to charge me (as some have done) with blaspheming, because I mention the blasphemy of others. And the more you are grieve with them that do thus blaspheme, see that ye "confirm your love towards them: the more, and that your heart's desire, and continual prayer to God, be, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!"

24. This premised, let it be observed, that 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 cannot deny that he says, "Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden." If, then, you say he calls those that cannot come; those whom he knows to be unable to come; those whom he can make able to come, but will not; how is it possible to describe greater insincerity? You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying on thing, and meaning another; as pretending the love which his had not. Him, in "whose mouth was no guile," you make full of deceit, void of common sincerity; -- then especially, when, drawing nigh the city, He wept over it, and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, -- and ye would not;" hqelhsa -- kai ouk hqelhsate. Now, if you say, they would, but he would not, you represent him (which who could hear?) as weeping crocodiles' tears; weeping over the prey which himself had doomed to destruction!

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.'"

28. O how would the enemy of God and man rejoice to hear these things were so! How would he cry aloud and spare not! How would he lift up his voice and say, "To your tents, O Israel! Flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly perish! But whither will ye flee? Into heaven? He is there, Down to hell? He is there also. Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent, almighty tyrant. And whether ye flee or stay, I call heaven, his throne, and earth, his footstool, to witness against you, ye shall perish, ye shall die eternally. 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, form the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof! Here, O death, is they 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 upon them for ever and ever! Let all those morning stars sing together, who fell with Lucifer, son of the morning! Let all the sons of hell shout for joy! For the decree is past, and who shall disannul it?"

29. Yea, the decree is past; and so it was before the foundation of the world. But what decree? Even this: "I will set before the sons of men 'life and death, blessing cursing.' And the soul that chooseth life shall live, as the soul that chooseth death shall die." This decree whereby "whom God did foreknow, he did predestinate," was indeed from everlasting; this, whereby all who suffer Christ to make them alive are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God," now standeth fast, even as the moon, and as the faithful witnesses in heaven; and when heaven and earth shall pass away, yet this shall not pass away; for it is as unchangeable and eternal as is the being of God that gave it. This decree yields the strongest encouragement to abound in all good works and in all holiness; and it is a well-spring of joy, of happiness also, to our great and endless comfort. This is worthy of God; it is every way consistent with all the perfections of his nature. It gives us the noblest view both of his justice, mercy, and truth. To this agrees the whole scope of the Christian Revelation, as well as all the parts thereof. To this Moses and all the Prophets bear witness, and our blessed Lord and all his Apostles Thus Moses, in the name of his Lord: "I call heaven and earth to record against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live." Thus Ezekiel: choose life, that thou and thy seed may live;"Thus Ezekiel: (To cite one Prophet for all:) "The soul that sinneth, it shall die: The son shall not bear" eternally, "the iniquity of the father. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (18:20.) Thus our blessed Lord: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink." (John 7:37.) Thus his great Apostle, St. Paul: (Acts 17:30:) "God commandeth all men everywhere to repent; -- "all men everywhere;" every man in every place, without any exception either of place or person. Thus St. James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." (James 1:5.) Thus St. Peter: (2 Pet. 3:9:) "The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." And thus St. John: " If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father; and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:1, 2.)

30. O hear ye this, ye that forget God! Ye cannot charge your death upon him! "`Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?' saith the Lord God." (Ezek. 18:23ff.) "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions where by ye have transgressed, -- for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God. Wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. -- Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 33:11.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Ken Harris with corrections by Ryan Danker and George Lyons of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. © Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webadmin@wesley.nnu.edu for permission or to report errors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christianlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,321-1,326 next last
To: Jerry_M; winstonchurchill; ward smythe; CCWoody; RnMomof7; forthedeclaration
, it is soooo much easier to make up some "construct" in your mind and then set out to destroy it.

Jerry, you keep saying this at different moments. Why is it that everyone else in the entire world defines calvinism in terms of that fatalistic tulip formula EXCEPT for you folks that isn't calvinism.

Would you please, finally, write down the acronym and give a nice succinct definition of each of the points so we do know in one package what you do believe about tulip?

181 posted on 02/27/2002 9:25:28 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
The fact that what we share here (The free offer of the Gospel to all)...

To further quote you: "Oh, baloney." The Calvinist construct is so brutal, so cold-hearted, so contrary to a real offer of salvation to all that its modern-day defenders (blessedly few) are reduced to highjacking phrases and turning them into half-truths and then claiming that they are being misquoted or misunderstood when the logical premise is made clear.

The modern day defender of the construct says "we offer the Gospel to all" but then conveniently 'forgets' to add, "But it doesn't really matter since who is going to be saved and who is to be sent to hell was determined by our god 'before the foundation of the world.'" So, it's an "offer" (get it?) but not everyone can accept. Isn't that clever? Wow. And that's supposed to be the Calvinist's version of the "Good News".

Now just how is that "Good News" to one of the little children the Calvinists so proundly declare were damned to hell from the foundation of the world? Nope, you can keep your little "Good News" (good only for your little church group) and your proud damnation of little children and innocent babies and your little god (too small to be confused with the real God). I will take Jesus and His true offer of salvation, capable of being accepted by anyone -- anyone! -- who will believe in Him.

At least be honest enough to admit that, where the Bible teaches Christ died for all the ungodly, the construct teaches He only died for your little group and all others are damned without hope.

You know, there are many areas where I am willing to live and let live in Christian doctrine, but the true availability of salvation in Christ to everyone who believes is one I cannot compromise. And I personally think that telling people that Christ only died for some is pretty dangerous ground. I personally would not want to hear Christ say, "You told them what?"

182 posted on 02/27/2002 9:29:54 AM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Ward Smythe; CCWoody; RnMomof7
This page on Calvinism does a pretty good job of succinctly presenting TULIP. Much better than anything posted to date on these recent threads.

It would also be a pretty good exercise to follow some of the links on the page as well, they lead to some really good material, not only on Calvin himself, but on Calvinism as a whole.

183 posted on 02/27/2002 9:34:35 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
John Calvin's Commentaries were devotional in nature. Even Jacob Arminius declared the excellence of them. John Calvin's Institutes contained his systematic theology

Do I understand you to be saying that Calvin felt free to teach error in his devotional material???? Seems quite odd to me.

By the way, Waite is esteemed. ThD AND PhD. I don't have those. Do you? (Ignore this if your words weren't intended to be sarcastic.)

184 posted on 02/27/2002 9:37:08 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Your 182 shows, once again, why I chose to not continue conversation with you on an earlier thread.

As a result, don't expect any more responses from me until you can develop the charity to concede that we can be Calvinist in theology and still make a legitimate free offer of the Gospel to all.

185 posted on 02/27/2002 9:37:32 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M; xzins
This page on Calvinism does a pretty good job of succinctly presenting TULIP.

Thanks Jerry! Great link!

Pretty well sums up what I thought you guys were saying all along.

186 posted on 02/27/2002 9:38:04 AM PST by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
As a result, don't expect any more responses from me until you can develop the charity to concede that we can be Calvinist in theology and still make a legitimate free offer of the Gospel to all.

Jerry, according to Dr Waite, above, a true calvinist cannot stand in front of a group of people unknown to him and also say, "Christ died for your sins." Waite says the calvinist cannot do this because he cannot be sure how many of the non-elect are out there.

Can YOU tell EVERYONE you meet that Christ did die for THEIR sins?

187 posted on 02/27/2002 9:40:54 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Nothing sarcastic in calling Dr. Waite "esteemed". I notice his credentials, but wonder why he doesn't understand Calvin any better than he does.

No, there is no error in Calvin's Commentaries. However, they serve a different purpose than the Institutes, which is something that Dr. Waite doesn't seem to understand.

I will give you a personal example: When I share the Gospel, I never use the words "predestine", "atonement", "propitiation", etc. I share the Word of God with men, and plead with them to come to Christ in faith. Even though I know that they will not come unless the Father draws them, I do not know who He is drawing. I simply plead with them to come, knowing that their positive response will be in response to His election and calling. However, once that man is saved, as part of my discipleship training of that man I will show him the nature of the work of God that saved him. Does this make sense?

188 posted on 02/27/2002 9:43:06 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M;xzins;CCWoody
No, we don't say that God "forces" us to believe. Is that the only thing you think about when you hear "irresistable"? Not me, I see that the thing that is "irresistable" is of such a nature that I hunger and thirst after it. I found my wife to be "irresistable" and I willingly sought to have her as my wife.

Exactly..they make it sound like God drags you kicking and screaming.I used the term wooing you and that got mocked..but the truth is it never entered my mind to want anything else...." the father draw him" do they think those are just words?

189 posted on 02/27/2002 9:43:08 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Can YOU tell EVERYONE you meet that Christ did die for THEIR sins?"

Here is what I tell men: Christ died for sinners.

Those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sin and drawn to Christ by grace will know that it is their sins that Christ died for.

190 posted on 02/27/2002 9:45:46 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Can YOU tell EVERYONE you meet that Christ did die for THEIR sins?

Absolutely a great question. No problem for the Biblical Christian as that is indeed the Good News.

Well, all you defenders of the construct, can you?

191 posted on 02/27/2002 9:46:57 AM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I used the term wooing you and that got mocked..but the truth is it never entered my mind to want anything else...." the father draw him" do they think those are just words?

Once again Mom, as a Wesleyan, or a former one, you know better.

192 posted on 02/27/2002 9:47:21 AM PST by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Ward Smythe
"Pretty well sums up what I thought you guys were saying all along."

I don't intend this to sound cruel, but I can only wonder why you have posted some of the things you have if this is what you have been thinking all along.

193 posted on 02/27/2002 9:50:40 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Ward Smythe
No comment on my 175? Seems that John Owens poses a "logical" difficulty for you.
194 posted on 02/27/2002 9:55:58 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: xzins; the_doc; RnMomof7; CCWoody; Jerry_M
Here I go again, X. (I really DONT have the time for this *grin*)

"I do think you underestimate your grasp of the logic being used. You are an invaluable ally of the true scriptural position of an UNLIMITED ATONEMENT. Christ truly did die for all. And all truly are capable of coming to him."

Does this mean all the sins of all men were hung on the cross with Christ? And if so, why, then, are not all men forgiven of all their sins? (Jerry is getting to this as well)

"We must keep our eyes on those truths of scripture, because all of the logic we use trying to explain it is just that....human logic."

We must also realize when to NOT use human logic when explaining scriptural truth.

If we insist the truth of Scripture is ALWAYS logically consistant, then:

Buh-bye Creation out of Nothing

Buh-bye Trinity

Buh-bye Miracles

Buh-bye Virgin Birth

Buh-bye Incarnation of Christ

Buh-bye Resurrection of Christ

Buh-bye Resurrection of the body

Buh-bye God relating to the created

In other words, Buh-bye Christianity

Last evening I read Mr. Wesleys sermon. I found him to be incredibly logical and sound in his reason. But, the thing which really stood out to me, is his insistance that Calvinists really do not believe what they say they believe, but that they really must believe what are the logical conclusions of their beliefs. In doing so, Mr. Wesley does not argue from Scripture, he argues from mere human reason. This is an emotional argument which uses logic to insist what Calvinists should believe what is logically required of them, and in doing so, brings up tremendous emotion as to why they are wrong. What really suprised me most was the fact that he did not argue from Scriptue until he had made his logical argument of what Calvinists should believe. Nary an citation was present until he had mischaracterized reformed theology. By insisting that Calvinists do not believe what they really believe, he then used scripture to argue against what he thinks Calvinists should believe. This is a very persuasive argument when one doesn't realize this tactic. In otherwords, Mr. Wesley is using logic to argue from emotion and is not arguing from Scripture. The problem with this is that this argument then denies the Trinity, Creation out of nothing, the resurrection of Christ... For we hold all these doctrines to be absolutely true even though they are all thoroughly illogical.

I then read George Whitefield's response and I could not put it down (only 16 pages? DANG!). He rebutted Mr. Wesleys entire debate with Scripture and not emotion.

If these arminians insist that we Calvinists really believe what logic requires of us, then I insist that they argue that we do not also believe in the Trinity, Creation out of Nothing, The resurrection of Christ, The incarnation of Christ...for when one considers logic in these doctrines, how can they be?

Jean

195 posted on 02/27/2002 9:59:11 AM PST by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: xzins, RnMomof7
#177 -- As for myself, I have never liked the term "Limited Atonement". The Atonement is, as the Calvinist Boettner has upheld, "strictly an infinite transaction".

I prefer the term "Limited Redemption", for God has only predestined to irresistibly cause a limited number of people to repent and be redeemed.. The Atoning Blood certainly suffices for Joseph Stalin, but it was never intended to apply to the Sins of Joseph Stalin. The Father knew full well that He had not chosen to elect Stalin to have his personality unilaterally re-engineered by the Spirit ("regenerated") so that he would Want to Repent; as such, God caused it to be certain, before Stalin was ever born, that Stalin never would repent.

And Jesus, the Son of God, certainly did not go to the Cross under the delusion that He was dying to give Stalin "a chance". Statistically speaking, Stalin had precisely a zero percent chance of Repenting from before the foundation of the world, because the Father had specifically predestined Stalin to Not Repent.

So while the Atonement (being an infinite transaction) was sufficient for Stalin, God certainly never intended that it should be efficacious to him.

196 posted on 02/27/2002 10:03:18 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
Those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sin and drawn to Christ by grace will know that it is their sins that Christ died for.

That is really clever. Kind of like 'begging the question'.

I'm really glad the Apostle Peter didn't play such word games when he preached: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." [Acts 2:38]

But then he didn't have to defend the construct, did he?

197 posted on 02/27/2002 10:04:17 AM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Been busy lately brother?
198 posted on 02/27/2002 10:05:42 AM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Your post cited Calvin's will, in which he said that the blood of Christ was shed for the human race and claimed that this was evidence that Calvin embraced universal atonement. Baloney, to put it mildly. Jesus did shed His blood for the human race - he didn't die for dogs! But he did not shed His blood for every human. If he had, then he would have paid for the sins of everyone who has ever lived, and no-one would be condemned to hell, ever. In which case the Unitarians are right and we can quit worrying about predestination or free will.
199 posted on 02/27/2002 10:13:13 AM PST by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Bump that one.
200 posted on 02/27/2002 10:15:32 AM PST by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,321-1,326 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson