[Alex Murphy]

This is part of a larger article that addresses a letter from Whitefield to Wesley. The above excerpts are only to establish the historical setting behind that letter.

The original article, at the website posted, anyway, concludes with these words:

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.
Amen!

In our discussions of this topic, I would implore all - but especially those who hold to the Wesleyan or Arminian viewpoint, as this is written from the pro-Whitefield perspective - to remember their inclusion at the end of the article.

[HarleyD]

"I hear, honoured sir, you are about to print a sermon on predestination. It shocks me to think of it; what will be the consequences but controversy? If people ask me my opinion, what shall I do? ... Oh, my heart within me is grieved . ."

My, how times have changed. I think the Rel Mod would welcome such discourse. Good thing Whitefield and Wesley didn't have the Internet. :O)

[Revelation 911]

already posted albeit from a different website

[ponyespresso]

for read and study later

pony

[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).

[rwfromkansas]

Ian Murray is Calvinist, BTW.