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)
"First, you (Wesley) say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9.
Wesley's point does have some logical support.
O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning--or rather sophistry--is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?
Something that has always puzzled me is just how a Calvinist knows whether election is true as they understand it. How can one determine if a free will decision is being made when someone accepts Christ as their personal Savior?
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.
Yes, that statement struck me as well. Why would Whitefield wish to restrain the preaching of predestination? Did he think this was not of vital importance in the understanding of God's character?
It may be a harsh truth of scripture but there are many more truths in scripture just as difficult to comprehend. Did he bring this up only because it was a known dispute between the two camps?