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.

[Alex Murphy]

Why would Whitefield wish to restrain the preaching of predestination?

I think it's the other way around. Wesley was the Arminian. He was going to preach against the doctrine of Predestination, and Whitefield was imploring him to keep silent.

The Wesley sermon that Whitefield was protesting can be read here.

[connectthedots]

I think Wesley makes some excellent points. I suppose I would take the Calvinist point of view more seriously when I hear a Calvinist preacher preach predestination to a crowd of unsaved people; and tell them that God has already decided which of you will be saved and those of you whom he did not choose in advance to be saved are condemned to hell; and there is nothing you can do or say to change that outcome.

[Alex Murphy]

I suppose I will take the Arminian point of view seriously agaion, when I see more Arminian apologetics use Scripture to support their views - instead of appeals to "reason", "free will", "conscience", "wonderful plans", or whatever pop psychology claptrap is in vogue on that particular day.

I used to think Arminianism was just an equally-valid way to interpret Scripture, until I started studying it in contrast to Calvinist and Reformed theology. Arminianism is intellectually and scripturally bankrupt in comparison, at least considering the examples I've read on FR. Repent, get saved, go tell others to repent, get others saved, repeat until raptured. That's about as intellectual as Arminianism ever gets.

[HarleyD]

I would just change the following; "I used to think Arminianism was just an equally-valid way to interpret Scripture, until I started studying it in contrast to Calvinist and Reformed theology to Augustine and the early church.

But then, they're one in the same as I have found out.

[visually_augmented]

You can come to my church anytime and you will hear much of what you are requesting!!!

[visually_augmented]

You can come to my church anytime and you will hear much of what you are requesting!!!

[Revelation 911]

Repent, get saved, go tell others to repent, get others saved, repeat until raptured. That's about as intellectual as Arminianism ever gets.

seemed to have worked for the thief on the Cross

[visually_augmented]

As I recall, he didn't tell too many others about Christ before his death.

But you might make an argument that the depiction of him in the Bible certainly brought a few people to their knees. In that regard, he may have "preached" the Gospel.

[P-Marlowe]

Repent, get saved, go tell others to repent, get others saved, repeat until raptured. That's about as intellectual as Arminianism ever gets.

Well if intellectualism saves your soul, then I suppose heaven will be filled with Calvinists and deists. You are right, Arminiansim by and large is not a product of intellect as much as it is a product of the heart. Calvinsim begins with the intellectual assent to the idea of a Sovereign God and Arminianism starts with the spiritual assent to the idea of a God who loves the whole world so much that he gave his only begotten son.

I am not looking for intellectual satisfaction when I open the Bible, I am looking for spiritual edification.

"Repent, get saved, go tell others to repent, get others saved, repeat until raptured."

Amen.

[P-Marlowe]

But then, they're one in the same as I have found out.

So are you saying that the reformation was a return to Rome rather than a break from it?

[Alex Murphy]

Well if intellectualism saves your soul, then I suppose heaven will be filled with Calvinists and deists.

And the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions, feel-good sermons, happy-go-lucky churches, "four laws" tracts, and marshmallow peeps :)

Bait-and-switch argument, PM. I wasn't discussing salvation, let alone salvation-by-knowledge, i.e. gnosticism. I was discussing what one hears in the pulpit or Sunday school class ten minutes after first bending the knee to Christ.

"Repent, get saved, go tell others to repent, get others saved, repeat until raptured." - Amen.

Arminianism preaches a shallow message, indeed.

[HarleyD]

So are you saying that the reformation was a return to Rome rather than a break from it?

I would characterize the Reformation as a correction to church doctrine.

[P-Marlowe]

Arminianism preaches a shallow message, indeed.

By your standard John The Baptist preached a very shallow message. He spent his entire life preaching the same message over and over and over and over again. "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand."

I was discussing what one hears in the pulpit or Sunday school class ten minutes after first bending the knee to Christ.

You seem to know how shallow the teaching is at Arminian Churches. Are you speaking from experience or from anectdote?

Does your church preach the whole counsel of God? Does your pastor read every word of scripture over a period of 8-12 years and go through every verse of the bible from the pulpit? Well, mine does.

I think you paint non-Calvinist churches with a broad brush. There are plenty of Churches out there that may fit the description you paint, but then I would imagine that a lot of churches fitting that bill stem from a Calvinist tradition. Whether a Church is Calvinist or Arminian in emphasis has literally nothing to do with whether or not they preach a shallow message.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

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. Whitefield's contention that it enables the elect to understand that he is part of that 'happy number' makes no logical sense.

Maybe to some it doesn't "make logical sense", but from a Biblical perspective it makes perfect sense just as Whitefield noted in his reply. God ordains the ends and the means.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Even if God did predetermine who would and would not be saved for not other reason than that is what He decided, there is no way for man to be able know if it is true.

Sure man can know it's true.

Why?

Because the Bible tells me so.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

I suppose I will take the Arminian point of view seriously agaion, when I see more Arminian apologetics use Scripture to support their views - instead of appeals to "reason", "free will", "conscience", "wonderful plans", or whatever pop psychology claptrap is in vogue on that particular day.

Please don't hold your breath on that one, we aren't ready for you to go home to be with the Lord just yet. :-)

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Well if intellectualism saves your soul, then I suppose heaven will be filled with Calvinists and deists.

One of the charachteristics of the Arminian postmodernist is the rejection of intellectualism in favor of hyper-emotionalism(what P-M calls, "the heart"), and in so doing are violating the greatest commandment, being, "Love the Lord Thy God with all thine heart, MIND, soul and strength".

Os Guiness wrote a great book a few years back on the topic of the neo-evangelical Ariminian postmodernists titled; Fit Bodies/Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What To Do About It".

I highly recommend it.

[aruanan]

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.

Meaning that Wesley wasn't a member of one of the most successful of the Christian heresies, Calvinism (included among Mohammedism, Russellism, and Smithism).

[Revelation 911]

But you might make an argument that the depiction of him in the Bible certainly brought a few people to their knees. In that regard, he may have "preached" the Gospel.

all for the glory of God Im sure

[Revelation 911]

well put marlowe