| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/09/2004 2:37:39 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked @ poster’s request. |
Posted on 09/07/2004 9:39:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Iain Murray on Whitefield and Wesley
[excerpted, beginning at fourth paragraph]
When Whitefield returned to England at the end of 1738, after his first visit to America, he found that the awakening in London had been furthered by the conversion and subsequent ministry of the Wesleys. Immediately they began to work together. Under Whitefield's preaching the revival spread to Bristol and the West country in February and March 1739, and when he left that area at the beginning of April 1739, John Wesley was given the oversight of the work.
But before three months had elapsed it began to be evident that there had not been the same doctrinal development in the Wesleys on all points mentioned above. The fact is that while John Wesley had at his conversion in May 1738 accepted evangelical views on sin, faith, and the re-birth, he had at the same time retained his pre-conversion opinions on the doctrines of predestination and the extent of the atonement.
[From the final footnote to the article]
On leaving England in 1739 Whitefield was the leader of the awakening; when he returned in 1741 it was to find himself supplanted and Wesley organizing the movement around himself. He had cause to write at a later date: "I have been supplanted, despised, censured, maligned, judged by and separated from my nearest, dearest friends." (Works of George Whitefield, edited by Gillies, vol. 2, p. 466.) But Whitefield was too great to contend for personal prominence. The legend of "England before and after Wesley " began to originate from this time.
(Excerpt) Read more at albatrus.org ...
I've come to like this response to disagreements. It's polite and I appreciate it.
However...
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." -- Isaiah 46:10.
I think we err if we limit God's knowledge of His creation which was ordained by Him from before the foundation of the world.
The issue I have with several people on these discussion (both sides of the issue) is that they tend to cherry-pick the verses they like and ignore the ones they don't like.
I admit I tend to pick on the Calvinists quite a bit, but my reasoning is the claim that calvinists "pay attention to every verse in the Bible," or words to that effect.
With a claim like that, you need to back it up. Since I continue to see cherry-picking of verses, without regard to others (or outright misinterpretation of them), I get rather upset.
I think we err if we limit God's knowledge of His creation which was ordained by Him from before the foundation of the world.
I think we err if we claim to understand God at all, much less "limit His knowledge," and these discussions seem to claim an understanding of God, His Will, and His knowledge.
Looks to me like they consider Calvinist banning as their only mission in life. It defines their purpose for being. How sad.
"I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth."'[1]
48Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
What does the bolded segment of that passage mean?
Regardless, I'm sorry I offended you.
It's been a widely used pejorative by Arminians on this board to try to smear Calvinists here with the mislabeling term, "hyper-Calvinists", as you did. Just like you, they cannot define the term, nor have a clear grasp of Calvinism and misrepresent what Calvinists teach constantly.
But what is really offensive is that just yesterday, a couple of the Arminians took it upon themselves to get their little pink panties all in a bunch over a comment I made to another Calvinist concerning Arminians who have elevated emotionalism over intellectualism(I even cited a book and author that lays out that preference), then stomped their feet, demanding that I define "hyper-emotionalism" and name those here who fit the definition.
A certain "ethic" was purported by the Arminians, which was challenged for consistency, because they never demand that "ethic" when it's Arminians falsely labeling Calvinists as "hyper-Calvinist". In other words, their double standard was challenged, and they didn't like it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1210153/posts
Why don't you heed that?
Hey...look...I'm not party to all this infighting. I haven't been following this and related threads. I only ducked in to make a comment or so, and I don't bear anyone any ill will.
Again, I apologize.
pot....kettle
kettle...pot
No thank you. I have no interest in getting into a hair-splitting contest, so I'll just sign out of this thread right now.
That is just the type of pejorative misrepresentations that I've witnessed as a common occurence. When challenged to actually provide something of substance to demonstrate you know what an "ultra-Calvinist, as you say, is, you bug out, like the others who seem to be content to simply smear, or attempt to with false accusations like that.
I can't speak for all, but I suspect that most of the Calvinist here would be glad to discuss the topic of "ultra-Calvinism" vs. Calvinism in order to have a discussion of substance and not hit and run smear tactics.
Must not have been very important.
You know how God hates your double standards.
Again, I apologize.
Ok.
ShadowAce: I think we err if we claim to understand God at all, much less "limit His knowledge," and these discussions seem to claim an understanding of God, His Will, and His knowledge.
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "understand" in this context, but we certainly have a personal responsibility to know God. What I mean by this statement is that we are to study His characteristics in Scripture and to become intimately related to God through prayer and prayerful meditations (guided by His spirit).
The popular question "what would Jesus do?" may be trite, but it is truly our responsibility to emulate Him as the Bible calls us.
If your word "understand" means to know how God or Christ would act in a particular situation, I think it certainly is a scriptural necessity. Don't you?
If your word "understand" means to know why God created man and all things, I would refer you to the catechism question which asks the same question and responds - "For His own glory". Perhaps this is the beginning of your understanding?
We need to stick to the basics, I believe, in inter-doctrinal discussions--especially since the medium itself does not lend itself well to discussions on delicate issues. There are no non-verbal cues, no non-verbal communication at all. As a result, it is very difficult to get one's point across in the manner it is meant. Offense is taken at things which were probably not meant to be offensive. Look at SKUB's reaction to Oberon. That was way over the top for a one-time comment. It's also proof that this medium is not good for discussions with people of thin skin.
I pinged you, people I mentioned, and a few others who may be interested.
I can assure you Ace that I don't have thin skin.
"Oberon" had added one more of the pejorative "ultra-Calvinist"(meaning: hyper-Calvinist) to a mountain of them that are a common false accusation and false labeling as a smear tactic by Arminians here.
I challenged him to see if he knew what the term he was using meant.
How would you like to be constantly misrepresented with a pejorative term that the accuser doesn't even know the meaning of?
Do you think you would reach a point where you would confront that kind of disingenuous tactics?
Therein lies the rub, the Bible doesn't teach that those "elements" of doctrine are all true as they are taught by certain, or else you have doctrinal relativism whereby all doctrines taught as true by every denomination or sect are equally valid, even the one's in direct contradiction to each other.
For example, Roman Catholicism teaches baptism regeneration as a dogmatic doctrine that is absolutely neccessary to be believed if one is to be saved.
The Bible, when taken as a whole, teaches the opposite. It is when we rightly divide the Word of Truth that false doctrines are separated from the True. We are commanded to do just that, as Jesus taught the Samaritan woman at the well, "My Father is looking for those who worship in Spirit AND Truth." You cannot separate Truth from genuine worship of God.
I have been. I left the Religious Forum due to exactly that a couple of years ago, before the advent of the Rel. Mod.
Do you think you would reach a point where you would confront that kind of disingenuous tactics?
See my reaction above. The point is--you don't know the person, and s/he doesn't know you. The medium doesn't lend itself well to discussions of this type. I'm not even sure he was addressing you in the first place, yet you took offense to what he said to someone else. That is my point.
That's not what I said. I was fairly clear in my meaning. Try reading it again.
This thread is just amazing, isn't it. Can I borrow your popcorn.
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.