Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7; Jerry_M
Wesley did agree with Calvin on may points..justification by faith..total depravity,what he called the "quicking" ( in reformend circles regeneration).he taught Salvation was fully of God,and the infallibility of Scripture..mostly that Salvation was fully of God

Hmmm! From the little I've read of both Calvin and Wesley, I'd say that Wesley denied Total Depravity (or man's total want to not repent), Regeneration as an act prior to man's confession of Christ with His lips, and that Salvation was fully (I'd say solely) of God.

I'd be happy to pull one, say Regeneration, and use a Spurgeon sermon I've read in the last month to start a thread. You can then try to find Wesley material to support their agreement. I'd say it would be a good exercise.

239 posted on 11/01/2001 5:03:55 PM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]


To: CCWoody
Hmmm! From the little I've read of both Calvin and Wesley, I'd say that Wesley denied Total Depravity (or man's total want to not repent), Regeneration as an act prior to man's confession of Christ with His lips, and that Salvation was fully (I'd say solely) of God.

No Wesley believed man was totally unable to respond to God because of the sin of Adam..He saw that it was necessary for God to intervene with His Grace if man were ever to hear and respond to the gospel. The difference in the theologies is IMHO primarily on the type and manner of grace

As Winston said Wesleyans see the grace as a general gift giving all men the ability hear the gospel and then choose if they will respond to God ( a resistible grace)....but Wesleyans will tell you that outside of that grace there is NO way a man could hear and respond

I have some literature Wesleyan literature that refers to man's fallen state as depravity,and some were it is call total depravity..

244 posted on 11/01/2001 5:50:16 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]

To: CCWoody
I just hunted abit for a few of Wesleys words on the topic of the sin nature. I persent this just for information..

1. And this is certain, the Scripture gives us no reason to think any otherwise of them. On the contrary, all the above cited passages of Scripture refer to those who lived after the flood. It was above a thousand years after, that God declared by David concerning the children of men, "They are all gone out of the way, of truth and holiness; "there is none righteous, no, not one." And to this bear all the Prophets witness, in their several generations. So Isaiah, concerning God's peculiar people, (and certainly the Heathens were in no better condition,) "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores." The same account is given by all the Apostles, yea, by the whole tenor of the oracles of God. From all these we learn, concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is" still "evil, only evil," and that "continually."

2. And this account of the present state of man is confirmed by daily experience. It is true, the natural man discerns it not: And this is not to be wondered at. So long as a man born blind continues so, he is scarce sensible of his want: Much less, could we suppose a place where all were born without sight, would they be sensible of the want of it. In like manner, so long as men remain in their natural blindness of understanding, they are not sensible of their spiritual wants, and of this in particular. But as soon as God opens the eyes of their understanding, they see the state they were in before; they are then deeply convinced, that "every man living," themselves especially, are, by nature, "altogether vanity;" that is, folly and ignorance, sin and wickedness.

3. We see, when God opens our eyes, that we were before _atheoi en tOi kosmOi_ -- without God, or, rather, Atheists, in the world. We had, by nature, no knowledge of God, no acquaintance with him. It is true, as soon as we came to the use of reason, we learned "the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead, from the things that are made." From the things that are seen we inferred the existence of an eternal, powerful Being, that is not seen. But still, although we acknowledged his being we had no acquaintance with him. As we know there is an Emperor of China, whom yet we do not know; so we knew there was a King of all the earth, yet we knew him not. Indeed we could not by any of our natural faculties. By none of these could we attain the knowledge of God. We could no more perceive him by our natural understanding, than we could see him with our eyes. For "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal him. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Father revealeth him."

Interesting that this would on the surface to be more in line with regeneration HUH?

246 posted on 11/01/2001 6:57:39 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson