Posted on 09/02/2004 5:19:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
The entire article at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/methodist/ch14.htm
Miss Wesley adds, "The letters in question were satisfactorily proved to be mutilated, and no scandal resulted from his trust in God." Richard Watson records that in his day some of these letters, mutilated, interpolated, or forged by this unhappy woman, had got into different hands, and were still preserved. There were other Calvinists besides Charles Wesley's friend who protested against the attempt on the part of Rowland Hill, Toplady, and others to defame Wesley's personal character.
Rowland Hill, however, lived to lament the bitter spirit of the controversy, and he said of his own writings, "A softer style and spirit would have better become me." He also suppressed one of his most violent publications. The smoke of the controversy must not conceal from us his noble work as an impressive, witty, warm-hearted preacher.
Within a year of the close of the controversy Toplady died. He had removed from the country parish of Broad Henbury to London, and two months before his death a strange scene occurred in his chapel in Orange Street. He had heard a report that he had expressed a desire to recant his opinions in the presence of John Wesley. His combative but honest soul was greatly stirred. He resolved to appear Before his congregation once more and publicly deny the rumor. His physician and family remonstrated in vain. He replied that he "would rather die in harness than die in the stall." He was carried to the pulpit, and there made his "dying avowal" that he was satisfied of the truth of all that he had ever written. He was carried from his pulpit and soon after borne to his grave. He was only thirty-eight when he died; and Bishop Ryle says: "If he had lived longer, written more hymns, and handled fewer controversies, his memory would have been held in greater honor .... Toplady's undeniable faults should never make us forget his equally undeniable excellencies." Wesleyan Methodists to-day agree with the evangelical bishop. One of them writes of the sturdy polemic: "He was honest in his errors, and had a stout English heart, which commands our wonder, if not our admiration, in spite of his faults
And that's cool... I'd be more disappointed in you, as a Covenantalist, if you didn't feel that way.
Dan here has seized upon a problem there is within some elements of the Reformed community: dispensationalism is viewed as some sort of heresy by some Reformed types. Heck, I remember a certian poster here who used to say explicitly that.
I find that claim almost comical, and certainly ironic, given that I have heard the exact same viewpoint used to describe covenantal amillenialists.
Dispensationalism may be many things, but it certainly is not heresy. There certainly are heretic dispensationalists -- some of the ones on TBN are a good example -- and I have no use for Hal Lindsey, with his utterly botched Gog and Magog analysis. But for every Hal Lindsey, there is a Gary North (Y2K, anyone????). Now, I must give credit to whom credit is due. Gary North has taken his lumps and moved on, and as far as I know, doesn't do any of the prophecy stuff any more, while Hal Lindsey is still the darling of the dispensational elements of the Religious Right.
Similarly, just as the Reformed community has some amazing gravitas behind it, so does the Dispensationalist commmunity. Darby, for instance, gave the Plymouth Brethren their heavily Biblical background that, to this day, even though it is now mostly Arminian with only a few pockets of resistance, still claims the most Biblically literate laity of any denomination I have ever seen. I don't think the Reformed community should underestimate the contributions of Chafer or Ryrie. And the Covenantalists definately should give some serious examination of Dr. Bock and Dr. Blasing's proposed Progressive Dispensational viewpoint.
There is one verse that clearly denounces Calvinistic teaching. Paul said, "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to the knowledge of the truth."
That verse, 1 Timothy 2:4, does not denounce Calvinism. Neither does 2 Peter 3:9. If Paul is indeed saying that God wills all to be saved, then all people would be saved. The very fact that not all people are saved disproves your interpretation.
If it is truly God's will for every single person to receive salvation, but not everyone does, then He would not be sovereign, omniscient or omnipotent. In short, He would not be God.
But all of the elect are saved. All those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world come to the knowledge of the truth.
A great Spurgeon quote. It's difficult to imagine a better summary of Calvinist thought on this matter.
If only we were as good or as smart as the Arminian folks, we wouldn't have to have such a humble attitude about this. Obviously, they must be much smarter or much more moral people than what we wicked and stupid Calvinists are.
Interesting quote. Do you happen to know the title of the sermon from which it comes, or the sermon number?
best, op
Indeed it is....
Yes.
b'shem Y'shua
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.