| 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 just haven't had 3 hours to sit down and watch it. I also have to coordinate it with Mrs. P-Marlowe. I don't want to watch it alone. Movies are no just fun unless there's someone with you so that you can make snide remarks and basically wreck the movie for them.
"If the Calvinist position of election is true, preaching the Gospel is unnecessary, but the be must be some reason we a commanded to preach the Gospel to the world that has a real pupose."
May I ask why?
Arminians assume this must be the case, but you never give any thoughtful explanation as to why preaching the Gospel is meaningless due to election.
Ian Murray is Calvinist, BTW.
May I ask how Revelation says our names are written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world?
If that doesn't mean our salvation was predetermined by God, what does it mean? And don't say it means he "knew" we would be saved ahead of time and then put our names down. That is just silliness. Why have a book if he wasn't effectively choosing who to save, just looking into some crystal ball? The book is significant. Honestly, it is hard for me to see it being treated with such reverence as a central aspect of salvation if God just decided to write people's names in there when he happened to look into the future and write down the names of those he saw come. No, it is more than that. After all, I do recall Revelation saying we are also his "called, chosen, faithful" followers.
And Romans 9 says some clay is prepared for destruction, some for life. The chapter implies an eternal fixing of this destiny.
I am neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian. I am a Christian.
I believed I used the word 'unnecessary', not 'meaningless'.
As to the substance of your question, if God has predetermined all who would be saved for whatever reason, whether anyone preaches the Gospel to them of not; their destination has already been determined. If that is the case, why bother preaching to Gospel? Does God command us to do anything that that has no effect on our world or the unsaved?
Not an unreasonable question. Could you give the specific cite in Revelation?
Certainly not.
But, in some way that we can't fully comprehend, our evangelism effects God's plan for saving his elect, those he chose from the foundation of the world. The Holy Spirit works to redeem those people once we spread the truth to them. They don't just automatically become saved at birth or something.
Why? We don't fully understand, but perhaps it brings God more glory when people come to Him with their own wills and minds instead of just being born saved or miraculously saved at some point in life without any human influence. It also serves to encourage believers more when they hear about how amazing God's work can be in a person's life.
In any case, God will save his elect; somehow, every single one will have the truth preached to him in God's timing. And the Spirit will then work to convert him.
Rev 17:8
8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
(NIV)
In other words he can literally undo what he has purposed to do before he ever purposed to do it.
Doesn't sound very Calvinistic to me.
I figured you might. That's why I pinged you over here.
BTW that article is Waaaayyyy over my head.
Math is unreasonably effective. The article is basically pointing out that a mathematician may have proven the Poincare Conjecture that a sphere can be used as an analogy for higher dimensional objects. In this case, it is the unreasonable effectiveness of geometry.
"damn it", Rev, I don't know how it would be possible for Alex to have done something that "was probably the most malicious, sinister thing [you] have ever seen." if you are talking about the contents of your own freepmail.
And if you are talking about the contents of your own freepmail, just how is it that Alex could have "divulged them to him in a frmail that you sent to me"???
"damn it", Rev, either you are talking about something in Alex's freepmail, or you are letting all of us know that the contents you wrote in your own freepmail are so malicious and sinister.
"damn it", it's just too confusing!
Jean
interacting only to bash
..........all in one post - congrats Jean - like a dog returns to his vomit the good book says
looks like the swarm is in full tilt red alert"
"damn it", that was intentional. ;)
"damn it", I didn't want to dissappoint -I have expectations to live up to. ;)
"hey - who you guys gonna "***** slap" today?"
"damn it", I won't know until after all the heavy drinking we FRC types do. ;)
"damn it", have a great day, Rev.
;)
Jean
You called it, wrigs!!!!
Your prediction bore out!
Jean
Its funny but it seems that physicists tend to accept creation much more readily than biologists. I think that physicists tend to see the mathematic impossiblity of order evolving out of random chaos and biologists tend to assume that order from disorder is somehow the "nature" of things.
It seems to me that in order to have ones name written in the Book of Life, one must accept Christ as Savior.
I see nothing in theses related verses that indicates support for predestination.
It is very revealing that biologists have no interest at all in answering the question: "what is life?". It is however a vital question to physicists and mathematicians.
A great thought experiment is to compare a live skin cell to a dead skin cell.
Both have the same chemistry, DNA, etc. The difference, according to "information theory and molecular biology" scientists is information, which Shannon defines (paraphrased) as "successful communication".
The live skin cell communicates with itself and its environment. The dead skin cell no longer communicates.
Science has not been able to identify a source for information in the universe. But we of course already know the Source:
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. – John 1:1-3
Huh? You need to switch to decaf even if you are studying Leviticus. :O)
Hey I found someone to agree with my statement. I don't think there's anyone left around here to agree with you. :-)
BTW, The operative word is "can". Not "did". I don't know that he did, I only know that he "can". That which is impossible for man is possible with God. IMO, "I Am" resolves a lot of paradoxes when you think about it. If God says he changes not, we must accept that. If he says he repented that he made man, then we must accept that. If there is a contradiction in those statements then it is only because we do not fully understand the nature of God.
Sometimes attempting to fully resolve those conflicts in our own minds and then express that resolution can cause dissention among the bretheren. I don't think it has to, unless we all want to get dogmatic about stuff we don't know anything about. Frankly I can accept the fact that God repented and that he is not a man that he should repent. For instance, he probably shouldn't show mercy to sinners, but he does. In that sense God repents of his wrath every time a sinner repents of his sins. Wouldn't you agree with that sentiment?
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.