What did John Wesley hold that Calvinist disagree with?

[fastfredy0]

God does not force anyone to come or to leave from His love and gift of eternal life.

A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

Everyone has freewill and chooses accordingly

Premise 1: You did not choose to have a sin nature.
Premise 2: A sin nature leads one to disobey God
Conclusion: You are NOT FREE to choose. The game is fixed. Therefore, free will is not true.

 

[Josheb]

Could one of the mods please remove the strike-through in Post #2? Thank you

 

[Arial]

Could one of the mods please remove the strike-through in Post #2? Thank you

I will see if I can do it through the edit feature. I don't remember how John did it before. Just remember to check before you post to make the strike through didn't post. If it did, immediately edit before edit time expires. That is all I know to say about why it is there.

Done! Successful!

 

[Josheb]

Just remember to check before you post to make the strike through didn't post.

I will check and verify there are no strike-throughs when I post, but the post was up for two days before the strike-through occurred. Posts #3 and #4 quote Post #2 without the strike-through, proving the strike-through did not exist for at least two hours after I posted the op-reply. This is the second time this has happened.

Just saying

 

[Arial]

I will check and verify there are no strike-throughs when I post, but the post was up for two days before the strike-through occurred. Posts #3 and #4 quote Post #2 without the strike-through, proving the strike-through did not exist for at least two hours after I posted the op-reply. This is the second time this has happened.

Just saying

Truthfully, I don't know. When it happened awhile back, I remember Joh saying it was something you were doing but I don't remember what that was. The only way I can reason through it, being not very tech savvy, is that if it was on your end, it would be the strike through accidently being hit or doing it on its own. My computer has been known to, on occasion, decide to do something I never asked it to and did not want.

So, my suggestion was based Soley on my limitations.

 

[ReverendRV]

I was looking at the Adventist history and was surprised at the influence that John Wesley had, and am puzzled why Calvinism are so vehemently opposed to his views. I have seen the strong resistance, especially in the struggle to label the church back in the 1950's, and keep them as being accepted as Christian because they were from the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition.

So what did John Wesley believe that Calvinist clash with, if I may ask. What causes such angst and strong reaction with fellow Christians?

I often say that Christians from the Past, may be thought of as Calvinists today; because they were more conservative than non Calvinists are now...

 

[makesends]

A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

Romans 1 would seem to disagree.

Premise 1: You did not choose to have a sin nature.
Premise 2: A sin nature leads one to disobey God
Conclusion: You are NOT FREE to choose. The game is fixed. Therefore, free will is not true.

They always choose sinfully. There is choice, just not libertarian free will. It is their fault.

 

[Josheb]

A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

Romans 1 would seem to disagree.

Premise 1: You did not choose to have a sin nature.
Premise 2: A sin nature leads one to disobey God
Conclusion: You are NOT FREE to choose. The game is fixed. Therefore, free will is not true.

They always choose sinfully. There is choice, just not libertarian free will. It is their fault.

A few thoughts:

1. Most of the Bible pertains to people who did know about God, consciously knew about Him, and made all their choices consciously knowing they knew. They simply did not do so conscientiously.
2. Romans 1 is one of the few passages in the Bible that can be directly understood to apply specifically about all humans, not just Jews and/or Christians.
3. Even if those not hearing the gospel did choose good that good choice and its effects would still have no salvific merit because it would be a choice and/or an act of the sinful flesh, not a choice/act of never-have-sinned sinless flesh.
4. Arminian synergies affirm the previous point. The non-Arminian synergies deny it. In terms of goodness, there is a belief all good choices/acts are the same in the Pelagian end of synergism. They are not.

Just saying





No strike-throughs at the time of posting
.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

Romans 1 would seem to disagree.

O.K. ... assuming you are correct, how does a person in the last 2000 years get to go to heaven if he never heard of Christ?

Aside: I grant Romans 1 says they are without excuse, but Romans 1 does not lay out an alternate method to get to heaven and other parts of the bible basically state you're going to hell if you don't know Jesus. For example, John 3:18 Whoever believes and has decided to trust in Him [as personal Savior and Lord] is not judged [for this one, there is no judgment, no rejection, no condemnation]; but the one who does not believe [and has decided to reject Him as personal Savior and Lord] is judged already [that one has been convicted and sentenced], because he has not believed and trusted in the name of the [One and] only begotten Son of God [the One who is truly unique, the only One of His kind, the One who alone can save him].

They always choose sinfully. There is choice, just not libertarian free will. It is their fault.

Agreed

 

[makesends]

Re: A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

It is not a question of whether or not, (as your construction may be taken to assume), they should have had a chance to do this or that. It is a question of who, or rather, what, they are. If they are not of the elect, they will always choose sinfully, corruptly, and at enmity with God. That is what they are —enemies with God— and they will always act accordingly. They had a choice.

Further, it is not because they never heard of Christ that anyone is destined to hell.

O.K. ... assuming you are correct, how does a person in the last 2000 years get to go to heaven if he never heard of Christ?

Does your question assume that anyone who has not heard of Christ "gets to" go to heaven, or should be able to "get to" go to heaven?

But the question also reminds me of someone saying, "Why am I here? Why wasn't I born into a Muslim upbringing, and all that implies?" To me, the question is silly. If Billy from Cedar Rapics had been born in Arabia, he would not be the same person he is as Billy.

It's not like speculating whether I had chosen a different wife what would things have been like. This is God's choice.

Aside: I grant Romans 1 says they are without excuse, but Romans 1 does not lay out an alternate method to get to heaven and other parts of the bible basically state you're going to hell if you don't know Jesus. For example, John 3:18 Whoever believes and has decided to trust in Him [as personal Savior and Lord] is not judged [for this one, there is no judgment, no rejection, no condemnation]; but the one who does not believe [and has decided to reject Him as personal Savior and Lord] is judged already [that one has been convicted and sentenced], because he has not believed and trusted in the name of the [One and] only begotten Son of God [the One who is truly unique, the only One of His kind, the One who alone can save him].

John 3:18 "The [one] believing is not judged, but the [one] not believing has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Why the extra words?

Romans 1 does not lay out an alternate method to get to heaven because there are no alternate methods. I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I will grant that it sounds cold to someone who thinks that those who are "clay for a lesser use" thinks it should be the choice of the clay to be as to its destiny, but the clay continually seals its own fate unless God chose it for a better use. And it does so because of what it is, just as God intended from the beginning. We don't operate on his level, hard as we try.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

It is not a question of whether or not, (as your construction may be taken to assume), they should have had a chance to do this or that. It is a question of who, or rather, what, they are. If they are not of the elect, they will always choose sinfully, corruptly, and at enmity with God. That is what they are —enemies with God— and they will always act accordingly. They had a choice.

Seems you are just using a different filter to determine if one is destined for hell. I agree that only the elect (filter1) go to heaven and all the elect have heard of Christ (filter2). Or if you have not heard of Christ (filter2) then you are not among the elect (filter1) and you are going to hell. As I stated, "A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell".
You are saved by faith and faith cometh by hearing. Those that don't hear of Christ go to hell, they are not among the elect.

Further, it is not because they never heard of Christ that anyone is destined to hell.

We're splitting hairs. The instrument cause of salvation is faith and faith cometh by hearing. I didn't go into deeper waters. I just stated that if one dies and has not heard of Christ they're going to hell. I didn't get into the efficient cause, mediatorial cause, yada, yada, giggle

I think we have a miscommunication ... so I won't address the rest of your reply.

 

[Arial]

John 3:18 "The [one] believing is not judged, but the [one] not believing has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Why the extra words?

It is the Amplified Bible.
Yes, the Amplified Bible (AMP) is a translation of the Bible. It aims to accurately translate the original texts from Hebrew and Greek into English while enhancing the meaning through amplifications, which are additional words or phrases that clarify the text. The Amplified Bible uses a unique system of brackets and parentheses to provide these amplifications, making it easier to understand the richness of the original languages.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=64ca...Lm9yZy9BbXBsaWZpZWQtQmlibGUtQU1QLmh0bWw&ntb=1
In my opinion it stops the flow of the reading and separates ideas. Back in the '80's the 700 Club made a big deal of it and sold millions of copies. I tried reading it cover to cover because that is what I did everytime I got a different translation. It did nothing but frustrate me---it was like someone constantly interuppting---and I couldn't. I don't throw books away and certainly not a Bible, so it sits on a shelf somewhere in my house. Or maybe in a box in the basement.https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=64ca...Lm9yZy9BbXBsaWZpZWQtQmlibGUtQU1QLmh0bWw&ntb=1

 

[ReverendRV]

Jesus is LORD...

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
It is not a question of whether or not, (as your construction may be taken to assume), they should have had a chance to do this or that. It is a question of who, or rather, what, they are. If they are not of the elect, they will always choose sinfully, corruptly, and at enmity with God. That is what they are —enemies with God— and they will always act accordingly. They had a choice.

Re: A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell ... is that not a person "forced" to do so since he had no choice?

Seems you are just using a different filter to determine if one is destined for hell. I agree that only the elect (filter1) go to heaven and all the elect have heard of Christ (filter2). Or if you have not heard of Christ (filter2) then you are not among the elect (filter1) and you are going to hell. As I stated, "A person who died having never heard of Christ and therefore destined to hell".
You are saved by faith and faith cometh by hearing. Those that don't hear of Christ go to hell, they are not among the elect.


We're splitting hairs. The instrument cause of salvation is faith and faith cometh by hearing. I didn't go into deeper waters. I just stated that if one dies and has not heard of Christ they're going to hell. I didn't get into the efficient cause, mediatorial cause, yada, yada,

I think we have a miscommunication ... so I won't address the rest of your reply.

Maybe. When someone says, "yada yada, therefore this or that", without saying, "yada yada, therefore we can assume this or that", I take them to mean causation —not evidence. The fact that they didn't hear of Christ is not what destined them to hell.

 

[makesends]

It is the Amplified Bible.
Yes, the Amplified Bible (AMP) is a translation of the Bible. It aims to accurately translate the original texts from Hebrew and Greek into English while enhancing the meaning through amplifications, which are additional words or phrases that clarify the text. The Amplified Bible uses a unique system of brackets and parentheses to provide these amplifications, making it easier to understand the richness of the original languages.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=64ca...Lm9yZy9BbXBsaWZpZWQtQmlibGUtQU1QLmh0bWw&ntb=1
In my opinion it stops the flow of the reading and separates ideas. Back in the '80's the 700 Club made a big deal of it and sold millions of copies. I tried reading it cover to cover because that is what I did everytime I got a different translation. It did nothing but frustrate me---it was like someone constantly interuppting---and I couldn't. I don't throw books away and certainly not a Bible, so it sits on a shelf somewhere in my house. Or maybe in a box in the basement.https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=64ca...Lm9yZy9BbXBsaWZpZWQtQmlibGUtQU1QLmh0bWw&ntb=1

It's a translation that goes a bit overboard. It tries to give the sense of the original language, but, ...no. It paraphrases, whether in brackets or not. The additional words or phrases, to me, anyway, are not trustworthy. No doubt some are good, but I've noticed too often where it assumes meaning that the original language does not.

Take for example, where Jesus engages in plays on words: The Amp renders verse 10 of John 4, "Jesus answered her, “If you knew [about] God’s gift [of eternal life], and who it is who says, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him [instead], and He would have given you living water (eternal life)." One interlinear reads, "Answered Jesus and said to her, 'If you had known the gift of - God, and who it is that says to you, "Give me drink, you anyhow would have asked him and he would have given anyhow to you water living." Another interlinear leaves out the "anyhow". Is it the attempt of the Amp to explain why the "anyhow" is in the original, by adding, "instead"? Why didn't they add it twice? But worse, they assume Jesus was referring to eternal life by their additions —I didn't go any further to see what they did with the other things he says further on, that don't need explained in verse 10. But what I read may be talking about something that comes with eternal life, but he seems to me to be talking about the life of the indwelling Spirit of God—regeneration, and the supplying of faith. They don't have the right to adding according to their own doctrine. They jumped the gun. He didn't say that in that verse. Even if he was talking about that, his method was not to begin with that.

 

[fastfredy0]

I take them to mean causation —not evidence. The fact that they didn't hear of Christ is not what destined them to hell.

Ah, there's our point of confusion. I meant evidence, not causation. My point was to show evidence that not all people have the ability to make a choice leading to salvation and thus 'free will' in those individuals could not be true.

You and I are in strong agreement that God is the cause of ALL THINGS.

 

[Josheb]

bump for @Hobie,

• How do you know God does not force anyone to come or to leave from His love and gift of eternal life? Would you please cite the scripture by which that position was reached?
• Where does the Bible state the unregenerate not-yet-saved sinner's will is relevant?

There are no strike-throughs at the time of posting.
.

 

[fastfredy0]

Take for example, where Jesus engages in plays on words: The Amp renders verse 10 of John 4, "Jesus answered her, “If you knew [about] God’s gift [of eternal life], and who it is who says, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him [instead], and He would have given you living water (eternal life)." One interlinear reads, "Answered Jesus and said to her, 'If you had known the gift of - God, and who it is that says to you, "Give me drink, you anyhow would have asked him and he would have given anyhow to you water living." Another interlinear leaves out the "anyhow". Is it the attempt of the Amp to explain why the "anyhow" is in the original, by adding, "instead"? Why didn't they add it twice? But worse, they assume Jesus was referring to eternal life by their additions —I didn't go any further to see what they did with the other things he says further on, that don't need explained in verse 10. But what I read may be talking about something that comes with eternal life, but he seems to me to be talking about the life of the indwelling Spirit of God—regeneration, and the supplying of faith. They don't have the right to adding according to their own doctrine. They jumped the gun. He didn't say that in that verse. Even if he was talking about that, his method was not to begin with that.

Well, I guess I will be odd man out. I like the AMP. I prefer their additions such as ( )s and [ ]s to show it's AMP's additions/opinions. I grant it could be misleading, but it is a 'best guess' and often makes the text more readable. Regarding "living water" of John 4:10 ... what's a better guess? As you point out, maybe best not to guess. If I'm new to the Bible I wouldn't have a clue what "living water" means. I can see your point too.

You must really dislike the "Thought for Thought" versions.

 

[makesends]

Well, I guess I will be odd man out. I like the AMP. I prefer their additions such as ( )s and [ ]s to show it's AMP's additions/opinions. I grant it could be misleading, but it is a 'best guess' and often makes the text more readable. Regarding "living water" of John 4:10 ... what's a better guess? As you point out, maybe best not to guess. If I'm new to the Bible I wouldn't have a clue what "living water" means. I can see your point too.
View attachment 1197
You must really dislike the "Thought for Thought" versions.

Yes. As bad as (in my opinion) the AMP is, the Message, etc is much worse —agreed. However, they are engaging in the same thing—adding what isn't there. The NIV, for example, at least (for the most part) is giving alternate renderings where they may be consciously doing so, but not adding. Whoever made this chart is doing so under the same miscomprehension that the translators have, that I am trying to point out—they do not realize to what extent 1. their bias, their personal opinion and doctrinal stance, affects EVERYTHING they think, do and say, even to the point of thinking they are only being accurate; and 2. the words they insert reduce the syntax, rhetoric, flow of thought and riddles-meant-to-be-riddles, obscure thoughts added to by other passages, and so on.

To me, the AMP is good for reading when some passage just isn't working for me. And then, good to forget.

"The more the words, the less the meaning"

 

[Arial]

Yes. As bad as (in my opinion) the AMP is, the Message, etc is much worse —agreed. However, they are engaging in the same thing—adding what isn't there. The NIV, for example, at least (for the most part) is giving alternate renderings where they may be consciously doing so, but not adding. Whoever made this chart is doing so under the same miscomprehension that the translators have, that I am trying to point out—they do not realize to what extent 1. their bias, their personal opinion and doctrinal stance, affects EVERYTHING they think, do and say, even to the point of thinking they are only being accurate; and 2. the words they insert reduce the syntax, rhetoric, flow of thought and riddles-meant-to-be-riddles, obscure thoughts added to by other passages, and so on.

To me, the AMP is good for reading when some passage just isn't working for me. And then, good to forget.

"The more the words, the less the meaning"

Agreed. And there is also the tendency, I suspect, when used by an A'ist (not by @fastfredy0 ! who is not an A'ist) to use it as a cheat sheet to actual study Of the Bible, assuming that equals the same thing.

If a passage, and/or the meaning of a word is encountered, a study of that word can be done from the Greek. There are legitimate "cheat sheets"
for doing that, since not many, comparatively, are fluent if Greek. And by comparing the passage in question with other passages on the subject or even with looking in the Bible to see who God is, what happened in the fall, the end fulfillment of what Christ began and will finish when he returns, and our role in redemptive story until he comes.

It is scripture that interprets scripture. The Amp inserts "suggestions" into the text and treats them like canonical fact.