B/S. Wesley, to the day he died, was an Anglican. He didn't found the Methodist church, but rather the Methodist movement. In the United States, Methodism wasn't a unique demonination separate from the Anglicans until after the American Revolution.
If you want to talk about schisms, you gotta look at the Pilgrims. They were Separatists from the Church of England; they weren't even Puritans.
Plus, like xzins said, there wouldn't have been a revival then without Wesley and Whitfield. (Okay, God did it. But he did it through primarily those two persons.) The only possible bases for accusing Wesley for creating a schism in the Wesleyan Revival are either ignorance or bigotry.
Wesley came from a line which rejected the Reformed doctrine in which they once believed and also caused further schism.
Rejecting Calvinism is not, ipso facto, "schism." This sort of bluster is the last refuge of the insecure.
***B/S. Wesley, to the day he died, was an Anglican. He didn't found the Methodist church, but rather the Methodist movement.***
I never said that Wesley left the Anglican church, now did I? Alas, it seems that you have no clue about what I speak. Oh, well, it doesn't change history. Wesley cause a lot of division.
But, all of this is really not here nor there. xzins has already acknowledge that the Anglicans were in a big mess during Wesley & Whitfield's day. In order for anyone to hang their hat on the lawful succession of elders, as xzins did with me, they need to answer this one question:
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
***Rejecting Calvinism is not, ipso facto, "schism."***
Sure it is. If the entire denomination is Calvinistic, then, by definition, rejecting Calvinism and teaching that which is contrary, is a schism.
***This sort of bluster is the last refuge of the insecure.***
Yeah, well, what is being the self-appointed public upbraider of the forum?
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.