Whitefield versus Wesley

www.albatrus.com ^ | Iain Murray

[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.

[HarleyD]

"The issue I have with several people on these discussion...is that they tend to cherry-pick the verses they like and ignore the ones they don't like.

My desire has always been to harmonize the gospel. I don't cherry-pick verses (not that I believe you're accusing me of this). I try to understand one verse in relationship to another. The Bible is filled with a number of these seemingly contradictory verses which I believe was given by design.

In my example of Numbers verses Exodus, I'm saying there is only one possible logical way to interpret it of which a little independent research shows. I'm not interested in supporting a particular dogma as much as I'm interested in understanding the nature of God. I have ALWAYS interpreted these verses this way even before I became a Calvinist simply because there is NO OTHER WAY unless you want to throw up your hands and say it's a mystery (as some have) or say that the Bible is in error (as others have).

I'm not prepared to write a dissertation on John 8 or the parable of the lost coin here. Besides when confronted with logical truths like the one above I find most will reject logic in favor of "Well, I don't know. It's too deep for me. We'll leave it to the intellectuals."

Sorry, but I have too deep of respect for God's word to play games with it. It's one thing to honestly NOT understand a particular point of view and to question it. But it is quite another to reject it just because it doesn't fit with your theology.

I don't cherry pick verses to fit a theology nor do I ignore verses any longer as I did in my Arminian days. I have given you a plausible interpretation (the only interpretation in fact) of Numbers verses Exodus. What is YOUR interpretation? You only have two other possible outcomes; 1) I don't know; or 2) the scriptures are in error.

[P-Marlowe]

You stated: "You can reconcile the Exodus passage with the Numbers passage as a literary allusion. A number of these verses also become clearer when you go back to the proper translation where they often mean God withheld His wrath-not “changing His mind” in our sense of the term. I looked up this passage and this is indeed what it says."

But what you seem to miss is the fact that if God withholds his wrath, then he is making a decision not to do that which had previously (from a time perspective) purposed to do, i.e, exercise his divine wrath. So you can make the argument that this is a mere literary allusion and that he is not repenting or changing his mind (so to speak), but if he has, in fact, determined to exercise wrath and then he determines to withhold it, then he has objectively changed his mind on exercising that wrath.

I believe the verses you quote are paradoxes much like the idea of the trinity. God's nature does not change. God is immutable. On that we all agree. God is not a man that he SHOULD repent. That is true. But He is God and in that sense he CAN repent. And if we believe the scriptures, he has, in times past, repented.

I think the paradox is resolved when we realize that God is not subject to time (which is part of his creation and a part of the physical universe) and thus his thinking and his actions are not necessarily linear. Indeed it could be argued that they are circular or perhaps even spherical.

In other words he can literally undo what he has purposed to do before he ever purposed to do it.

I await the flames of those who have flamed me on this subject before.

<><

Marlowe

[xzins]

Where is the Grotius suit? :>)

He can undo what he purposed to do before he ever purposed to do it.

From my perspective that means that I act. My act is real or my act is programmed.

If my act is programmed, then I am not real and can never be real. I will always be the wooden marionette.

If my act is real, then I am real.

[P-Marlowe]

Where is the Grotius suit? :>)

Do you think, with that statement, that I am I flame-worthy?

I suppose that's the kind of statement that would have gotten me burned at the stake not too long ago, eh?

[xzins]

I could tell by the absence of the suit that you sensed a lessened risk.

The room is empty. Send in the clowns.

:>)

[Corin Stormhands]

you rang?

[P-Marlowe]

I see the Huarache Sandal man was evicted. Those retreads just don't last, do they? You take 'em out on the highway and the minute the heat gets above 100 degrees they blow out.

Don't believe the hype.

[xzins]

My wife is listening to the end of ROTK in the background.

They've just rescued Frodo and Sam.

The world is a nicer place now that Sauron is destroyed.

And that is the moral of this story.

"Now come the Days of the King."

[Corin Stormhands]

~snif~

I'm usually okay until after the coronation. When Aragorn says "My friends, you bow to no one," well, let's just say...

[P-Marlowe]

They've just rescued Frodo and Sam.

Oh, Man! You just wrecked it for me.

Anybody want to buy an un-used copy of the ROTK DVD?

[xzins]

Did either of you ever read the 1st Thomas Covenant series.

Who were the "karate type" race who served as bodyguards?

(The Huarache Sandal tires reminded me again -- the name is close, isn't it?)

[Corin Stormhands]

You mean you haven't watched it yet?

Heretic.

[Corin Stormhands]

I read 'em x, but it's been 20 some years...

[xzins]

Spoiler...Spoiler...close your eyes.

USC wins College football crown in 2004.

[Corin Stormhands]

Go try posting that with a graphic on eight threads and see where it gets ya...

[Corin Stormhands]

nite boys

[xzins]

Wow. Has it really been that long ago?

YOU must be getting really, really old.

:>)

[Corin Stormhands]

I was an early reader...

g'nite

[xzins]

Do we get flagged for demonstrating in the end zone after a TD?

[xzins]

Oh, all right.

Go to bed now.

G'nite.