| 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 ...
So when you accuse someone else of doing what you do, what do you call that?
liberalism ;)
If you feel that is the right thing to do, then go ahead. I'm reminded however - indeed, convicted - by the words found at the close of this article. Considering some of our earlier battles, I would suggest that we could both learn a great deal from the friendship that existed between these two men. Here are those words again, for our joint edification...
Doctrinal differences between believers should never lead to personal antagonism. Error must be opposed even when held by fellow members of Christ, but if that opposition cannot co-exist with a true love for all saints and a longing for their spiritual prosperity then it does not glorify God nor promote the edification of the Church.Banned or not, believe it or not, you and your friends will be in my prayers anyway. Have a blessed evening, Rev.
you want to play that way, ok, so will I.
Sorry, but that is intellectually dishonest at best and rather childish, like a spoiled child acts.
So, I'll respond to what I want as well since they seem to think they set the ground rules here.
On that note, I bid you goodnite, and hope the atmosphere improves around here.
It's exactly that kind of over-reaction to a challenge for P-Marlowe to be consistent with his ethic that causes a lot of consternation and is evidence of your's and other's desires to have Calvinists banned for the slightest thing you can find to be offended over.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but it is good manners and Free Republic rules that if you name somebody by name in your post, that you have the decency to ping them.
Quite frankly SKUB, you have been a disrupting influence since you showed up here. You accuse the Arminians of refusing to answer questions, yet you refuse to answer any reasonable question posed to you. You have accused all of us non-Calvinists of being hyper-emotional anti-intellectual Arminian postmodernists (whatever that is) and then feign indignation when we respond.
You said to Frumanchu that you hope the atmosphere improves around here. Well if you are honest in that hope, then maybe you should not come back. It was much more pleasant around here before you arrived.
One of them I prefer to ping me separately.
Is it possible for Schwarzeneggar's popularity to rub off on Pres. Bush in California?
X
Great witness.
Probably not. But I think Arnold has made the word "republican" less repulsive to a lot of more middle of the road democrats. In the recall election republicans won over 60% of the statewide vote. A turnout like that again could spell a victory for Bush.
I came on this thread in response to your broad brush blast at the intellectual capacity of Arminians as expressed in your post #23.
I'm outa here.
I disagree. I think it is more appropriate to say that the non-Calvinist Christian realizes that the Gospel message is so simple, it does not require 'intellectualism' to understand it. Sometimes it takes a an intelligent person to realize the solution does not require extensive manipulations of words or doctrine. Some things are so obvious on their face they speak for themselves.
If God created the universe and all of time from before the foundation of the world, then there is NOTHING unknown to Him. Every second of every day has already been factored into the equation that makes up our lives. There is nothing beyond God's knowledge, most especially His own actions. To deny that denies the very essence of God Himself.
God does not "change His mind."
God changes the minds of men, according to His design.
Marlowe, it's just not your place to go around continually saying that to FReepers.
You sound like some crabby old coot who complains about his neighbor's laughter.
Like jean - you share nothing with me unless you are bashing me
Its plain the swarm has been activated
Have a blessed day
courtesy ping to the previous
I have no idea what you're talking about. You were the one who popped a gasket and started swearing. You were the one who threatened to have someone banned. I think you owe everyone here an apology for your outburst, which was hardly an example of Christ-like behavior. I tried to make my point in two words, which were not an attack, but a gentle exhortation and a statement of obvious fact, and now you're trying defend the indefensible. I harbor no ill will toward you, but I'm not so sure the reverse is true.
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.