What did John Wesley hold that Calvinist disagree with?

[Hobie]

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?

 

[Josheb]

What did John Wesley hold that Calvinist disagree.


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?

John Wesley believed (and taught)...

1. Prevenient grace; the condition in which an individual is freed from the effects of sin for a moment, during which they are able to choose salvation.
2. God considers the faculties of the sinner (unconditional election). God's foreknowledge of who will freely accept His prevenient grace is what leads to their election. As a consequence, Wesley also denied limited atonement or the viewpoint Christ's work was sufficient for all but effective only in the lives of those God saves.
3. Once saved, human moral agency precludes the need for God to be successful saving a person. This is a direct consequence of prevenient grace.
4. Salvation can be lost.
5. Wesley believed in what we now call "experientialism," or the belief a person could know s/he was saved because s/he had had an experience, a conversion experience, a conversion measure by the individual's experience (not criteria from scripture or the creeds).
6. Piety, the belief religious practice (or personal effort observable as holy living) was salvific.

These are the primary points of disagreement. There are others, but any one of these differences will be sufficient to drive a thread for many pages.

 

[Arial]

John Wesley believed (and taught)...

1. Prevenient grace; the condition in which an individual is freed from the effects of sin for a moment, during which they are able to choose salvation.

Did Wesley give any biblical support for this? I don't remember everything in the Bible, but cannot no think of a single place where that teaching is stated. It would have to be inferred from certain scriptures. So if you have the information concerning his support, I would be interested in seeing it.

2. God considers the faculties of the sinner (unconditional election). God's foreknowledge of who will freely accept His prevenient grace is what leads to their election. As a consequence, Wesley also denied limited atonement or the viewpoint Christ's work was sufficient for all but effective only in the lives of those God saves.

This is the one typically used in the debates over the Doctrines of Grace. It is a perversion of the biblical use of "foreknew". What is ignored, no matter how often it is pointed out, is that what is described above is not election by God at all. It is man electing God and bringing themselves into the New Covenant by their own choice. And Wesley still has a limited atonement. Christ died for all but----only those who accept his grace are actually saved. That, of course, would mean that for the most part, Christ died in vain. It wrecks the power of the cross and the atonement, and Christ.

3. Once saved, human moral agency precludes the need for God to be successful saving a person. This is a direct consequence of prevenient grace

That is barely even a synergistic view of salvation. It is much closer to a reverse monergism, in which man does all the saving, other than the "insignificant and impotent" life, (according to 1 and 2) death, and resurrection, of Christ. Jesus dies on the cross, is raised to life, ascends back to the Father. We do all the rest. Where is the Holy Spirit in Wesley's theology?

4.Salvation can be lost.

It stands to reason that would be the conclusion of Wesley. After all, what one can do, they can also undo---change their mind. In fact, they are likely to go back and forth the rest of their life, going in and out of salvation. Seems he also abandoned "For the glory of God alone."

5. Wesley believed in what we now call "experientialism," or the belief a person could know s/he was saved because s/he had had an experience, a conversion experience, a conversion measure by the individual's experience (not criteria from scripture or the creeds).

Yep. That is the norm in the postmodern church. What about all those who do not have an experience? What counts as an experience? How dramatic does it have to be? Given that many are taught that, or all the public testimonies of conversion leave the impression that is what salvation is measured by, what are we to say about those folks in the bygone days of Confessions of Faith, and expositional, exegetical, teaching of the word from the pulpit, who simply believed? Minus any dramatic experience.

6. Piety, the belief religious practice (or personal effort observable as holy living) was salvific.

How is it possible to get so far from all the teaching of Paul that salvation is by grace, through faith, not works?

 

[prism]

5. Wesley believed in what we now call "experientialism," or the belief a person could know s/he was saved because s/he had had an experience, a conversion experience, a conversion measure by the individual's experience (not criteria from scripture or the creeds).

This essentially is the exception, not the rule. The Apostle Paul fits this exception; otherwise, (or as a result) we have 'Christians' running around looking for that ultimate 'fix'.

 

[Carbon]

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?

He believed and taught Perfectionism. Teaching that a sinner could achieve perfection here in life and not sin any longer.

Also, a true believer in Christ could lose their salvation.

 

[Josheb]

I am going to take the inquiries one or two at a time in separate posts.

Did Wesley give any biblical support for this? I don't remember everything in the Bible, but cannot no think of a single place where that teaching is stated. It would have to be inferred from certain scriptures. So if you have the information concerning his support, I would be interested in seeing it.

HERE is a link to his sermon (pdf) titled, "The Doctrine of Original Sin," in which he explicitly upholds that doctrine and what we now call "Total Depravity." This is observable in his statements HERE, "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," and "Were two infants in like manner to be brought up from the womb without being instructed in any religion, there is little room to doubt but (unless the grace of God interposed) the event would be just the same. They would have no religion at all: They would have no more knowledge of God than the beasts of the field, than the wild ass's."

One place Wesley affirms a state of grace that applies to all humans, including sinners in the unregenerate state, in the pdf is on page 10 where he discusses the state of sinful mankind. The word "preveient" is not found anywhere in the sermon, so the best way to track his case for prevenient grace is to hit ctrl-f and type in thhe word "grace," and then follow the sequence for every occasion where he uses that word. Wesley (commendably) uses a lot of scripture but he does not use it well. He commits the same errors every synergist makes: he applies verses written about the already saved and applies them to the not-yet-saved, and he reads selected verses inferentially, with eisegetic inference, understanding them to allude to a sinner's volitional agency when no such thing is explicitly stated in any of the verses referenced, cited, or quoted. For example, the "we" of the following passage are references to all humans, not the saints.

"HENCE' it followeth, 1. That the abounding of God's grace, and the blessings by that Grace, doth not respect the Consequences of Adam's Sin, hath no Reference to his Transgression, but to the Grace of God and the Obedience of Christ." "The abounding of God's grace,” you inform us, “has Reference to the Grace of God.” Most sure. But this does not prove, that it has no Reference to the Consequences of Adam's Sin. If we gain more Blessing by Christ than we lost by Adam it is doubtless abounding Grace. But still, it has a Reference to Adam's Transgression, and the Consequences of it.​

See page 116 and continue reading pages 17-18 and the group about which he is speaking becomes more apparent. He's talking about all humanity, not those already converted. Wesley bestows the potential of grace upon all humans, stating the grace of Christ is much larger than the disobedience (and its effects) of Adam, comparing the effects of sin on all humanity with the blessings of Christ, likewise, on all humanity. Monergism disagree. The blessings of Christ commensurate to Calvary are available and received by the saints alone, those in whom God works monergistically, not just any human who chooses Christ while still in the sinfully dead and enslaved (depraved) state.

However, and this is a very important matter, Wesley's view of prevenient grace also applied to the saint and was specifically tied to missions, Piety (capital "P"), and God overarching goal of reconciliation. Prevenient grace, for Wesley, is not simply applicable to how a not-saved person becomes a saved person but also includes how the saved person stays saved. S/he accesses God's grace. The wording often sounds consistent with monergism but reading the assertions and arguments in their entirety reveals his mindset. For example, in Sermon 85 - "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," he goes back and forth between the person saved, then unsaved, then saved.

Proceed we now to the Second point: If God worketh in you, then work out your own salvation. The original word rendered, work out, implies the doing a thing thoroughly. Your own; for you yourselves must do this, or it will be left undone forever. Your own salvation: Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God. Salvation is carried on by convincing grace, usually in Scripture termed repentance; which brings a larger measure of self-knowledge, and a farther deliverance from the heart of stone. Afterwards we experience the proper Christian salvation; whereby, "through grace," we "are saved by faith;" consisting of those two grand branches, justification and sanctification.​

Proper Christian salvation happens after grace has convinced the person, repentance has occurred, and greater self-knowledge has been obtained.

 

[Josheb]

This is the one typically used in the debates over the Doctrines of Grace. It is a perversion of the biblical use of "foreknew".

I completely agree. More importantly, this is a serious compromise of Proper Theology because it compromises divine omniscience. If God has to look to see who chooses Him then this implies, he does not know unless and until He looks. Or..... if God knows something beforehand then this determines the choice because someone who God supposedly foreknows will choose decides not to choose then God's knowledge was wrong. God cannot not know and once He knows that matter becomes inescapable, unavoidable fact. Wesley's view of foreknown salvation being predicated on the (sinful) human choice contradicts other core doctrines.

That is barely even a synergistic view of salvation. It is much closer to a reverse monergism, in which man does all the saving, other than the "insignificant and impotent" life, (according to 1 and 2) death, and resurrection, of Christ. Jesus dies on the cross, is raised to life, ascends back to the Father. We do all the rest.

Yes, and I refer the lurkers to the links in Post #6 to find support for this, especially that last link. Noting Articles 1 and 2 of Section 1, Wesley asserts what sounds like a monergist position: We work because God works in us to do so, and we do so solely because of the Spirit's inspiration, enabling, and empowerment. However, Wesley then states, "Your own; for you yourselves must do this, or it will be left undone forever." The position that it will be left undone leaves absolutely no room for God to overrule the saint and work within him/her against the sensibilities of the neglectful (or wayward) saint. It poses serious problems for straight reading of Romans 7-8. If Wesley is correct, then the saint's flesh wins over God, not the other way around.

Where is the Holy Spirit in Wesley's theology?

He's there. He's just not there as Calvinists understand His presence and work. I should add that within Calvinism there is some diversity of thought. Strict determinism would be a statistical and normative outlier in Calvinism, and most Cals will fall within a spectrum in which some volitional agency of the saint is asserted but it is asserted as a function of the Spirit having freed the saint from sin. See the threads on Sanctification and the degree to which sanctification is synergistic after salvation.

 

[Arial]

I am going to take the inquiries one or two at a time in separate posts.

HERE is a link to his sermon (pdf) titled, "The Doctrine of Original Sin," in which he explicitly upholds that doctrine and what we now call "Total Depravity." This is observable in his statements HERE, "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," and "Were two infants in like manner to be brought up from the womb without being instructed in any religion, there is little room to doubt but (unless the grace of God interposed) the event would be just the same. They would have no religion at all: They would have no more knowledge of God than the beasts of the field, than the wild ass's."

One place Wesley affirms a state of grace that applies to all humans, including sinners in the unregenerate state, in the pdf is on page 10 where he discusses the state of sinful mankind. The word "preveient" is not found anywhere in the sermon, so the best way to track his case for prevenient grace is to hit ctrl-f and type in thhe word "grace," and then follow the sequence for every occasion where he uses that word. Wesley (commendably) uses a lot of scripture but he does not use it well. He commits the same errors every synergist makes: he applies verses written about the already saved and applies them to the not-yet-saved, and he reads selected verses inferentially, with eisegetic inference, understanding them to allude to a sinner's volitional agency when no such thing is explicitly stated in any of the verses referenced, cited, or quoted. For example, the "we" of the following passage are references to all humans, not the saints.

"HENCE' it followeth, 1. That the abounding of God's grace, and the blessings by that Grace, doth not respect the Consequences of Adam's Sin, hath no Reference to his Transgression, but to the Grace of God and the Obedience of Christ." "The abounding of God's grace,” you inform us, “has Reference to the Grace of God.” Most sure. But this does not prove, that it has no Reference to the Consequences of Adam's Sin. If we gain more Blessing by Christ than we lost by Adam it is doubtless abounding Grace. But still, it has a Reference to Adam's Transgression, and the Consequences of it.​

See page 116 and continue reading pages 17-18 and the group about which he is speaking becomes more apparent. He's talking about all humanity, not those already converted. Wesley bestows the potential of grace upon all humans, stating the grace of Christ is much larger than the disobedience (and its effects) of Adam, comparing the effects of sin on all humanity with the blessings of Christ, likewise, on all humanity. Monergism disagree. The blessings of Christ commensurate to Calvary are available and received by the saints alone, those in whom God works monergistically, not just any human who chooses Christ while still in the sinfully dead and enslaved (depraved) state.

However, and this is a very important matter, Wesley's view of prevenient grace also applied to the saint and was specifically tied to missions, Piety (capital "P"), and God overarching goal of reconciliation. Prevenient grace, for Wesley, is not simply applicable to how a not-saved person becomes a saved person but also includes how the saved person stays saved. S/he accesses God's grace. The wording often sounds consistent with monergism but reading the assertions and arguments in their entirety reveals his mindset. For example, in Sermon 85 - "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," he goes back and forth between the person saved, then unsaved, then saved.

Proceed we now to the Second point: If God worketh in you, then work out your own salvation. The original word rendered, work out, implies the doing a thing thoroughly. Your own; for you yourselves must do this, or it will be left undone forever. Your own salvation: Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God. Salvation is carried on by convincing grace, usually in Scripture termed repentance; which brings a larger measure of self-knowledge, and a farther deliverance from the heart of stone. Afterwards we experience the proper Christian salvation; whereby, "through grace," we "are saved by faith;" consisting of those two grand branches, justification and sanctification.​

Proper Christian salvation happens after grace has convinced the person, repentance has occurred, and greater self-knowledge has been obtained.

I will have to get back to this in more detail later. I read some in the links. And still I say that he has not shown that it is the Bible that declares grace is given to all so all have equal chance to believe. IMO, that would need to be something that was explicitly stated in scripture, and it never is. Instead, Scripture tells us that we must be born again by the Holy Spirit before we can see or enter the kingdom of heaven. It tells us that God makes us alive while we are dead in our trespasses. It tells us, when proper hermeneutics are applied that include the full counsel of God, that at regeneration we are placed in Christ through faith, (made alive) and therefore are also justified and have his righteousness imputed to us. So, it is not sinners coming to Christ by their own choice. Unregenerate sinners just do not do that and cannot. If everyone had enough grace to do that it would not be a grace that saves. Scripture says we are saved by grace. And if everyone had enough grace to accept or reject Christ---who would reject? It requires a certain amount of understanding of spiritual things when there is no Spirit in them, to make a decision to accept or reject. Who, having that understanding would say, "No, I prefer hell." People reject Christ because they don't understand and cannot. Not because they do understand.

I know I am "preaching to the choir" here. I am simply refuting Wesley's assertions.

 

[Josheb]

Yep. That is the norm in the postmodern church.

Or that is what they would have us believe. Statistically speaking, the Church is divided into three parts regarding this position: the RCC/EO pov and those aligned with that tradition, the Reformed pov, and the post Wesleyan methodism/experientialism. The latter just happens to have a large presence in media outside academia (tv/radio/print). They themselves think they are the standard but that is mainly because of their insulation and naivety. They believe what they hear and don't investigate with critical thinking.

What about all those who do not have an experience?

What about them? I don't believe they exist. I do believe many real Christians exist who do not or cannot point to a specific moment of change but changed they are, nonetheless. My wife would be one such person. She was raised in a Christian home and has been a Christian as far back as she can remember. She did, as is often the case with those raised in Christian homes, did reach a point in her life when she realized she was not living what she believed and then also realized she needed to have integrity. There are lots of saints like that. I would venture to say my type of conversion experience is not the norm. The problem with experientialism is its reliance on the subjective anecdotal report as the sole and primary objective measure of conversion. That is not the metric scripture uses and Jesus implicitly repudiates that viewpoint in Matthew 7. Lots claim to know Jesus but Jesus unequivocally states they were never known. It's particularly poignant because he does not invite them to be saved. He tells them to leave ! Are we to imagine none of the former poseurs asked for salvation? Crickets chirping

What counts as an experience?

Whatever scripture stipulates. Everything else is, at best, extra-scriptural and, at worst, contradictory.

How dramatic does it have to be?

I know these are rhetorically asked but let's not get far afield of the op. Wesley is the only one who could answer that question for Wesleyan soteriology. I do not believe Wesley intended to establish experientialism as a standard. Theology has progressed a great deal as a consequence and, while I do not know, I believe Wesley would clarify much of his teaching, self-correcting it, if he ever saw what experientialists have done with his methodism.

Given that many are taught that, or all the public testimonies of conversion leave the impression that is what salvation is measured by, what are we to say about those folks in the bygone days of Confessions of Faith, and expositional, exegetical, teaching of the word from the pulpit, who simply believed? Minus any dramatic experience.

Wesley is a transitional figure. He subscribed to a lot of Reformed thinking, but he was also Arminian and struggled profoundly with his own experience. Welsey is the guy who became a cleric based on intellectual assent and failed miserably. He's the guy told to preach until he believed and then preach because he believed - the guy who could hear that only with more intellectualism that led to a despair "dark night of the soul," which, in turn led to a dysfunctional view of piety and the synergism I've described and evidenced in the preceding posts.

How is it possible to get so far from all the teaching of Paul that salvation is by grace, through faith, not works?

LOL!

Ask Alexander Campbell, William Miller, Charles Taze Russel, John Darby, Joseph Smith, Edgar Whisenant, Harold Camping, John Hagee.... Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it, and many of them go to their destruction singing in mistaken belief. Remember this op was prompted by someone looking at Adventist history. How many times in how many forums have I chronicled the evolution of experientialism from Wesley's methodism through the Restoration Movement? The information, the facts of history, is not secret. All Protestants should understand this because we consider ourselves THE orthodoxy but, historically speaking, we're upstarts, rebels. If it weren't for the many challenges and rigorous demand apologetic demand of Protestant progeny those of use holding fast to the Reformed Theology could not and would not exist. There was a time when we were the new, and very different viewpoint holders. Wesleyanism, methodism, and experientialism are not wrong because they are new. They are wrong because they are not scriptural and defy reason unable to withstand critical examination.

 

[Josheb]

I will have to get back to this in more detail later. I read some in the links. And still I say that he has not shown that it is the Bible that declares grace is given to all so all have equal chance to believe.

You are correct. Perhaps I should clarify. Wesley uses a lot of scripture. Wesley does not use a lot of scripture well. This is very common thinking and very common practice in the modern Church: a person thinks the plentiful use of scripture legitimates their position when it is only the veracious use of scripture that does so.

This is why I so often ask first for what is explicitly stated.

More often than not (by a wide margin), merely asking the question causes aggression, and rarely if ever an actual answer to the question asked. Synergism is built entirely on eisegetic inference, never is the foundation that which is explicitly stated.

 

[Arial]

You are correct. Perhaps I should clarify. Wesley uses a lot of scripture. Wesley does not use a lot of scripture well. This is very common thinking and very common practice in the modern Church: a person thinks the plentiful use of scripture legitimates their position when it is only the veracious use of scripture that does so.

This is why I so often ask first for what is explicitly stated.

More often than not (by a wide margin), merely asking the question causes aggression, and rarely if ever an actual answer to the question asked. Synergism is built entirely on eisegetic inference, never is the foundation that which is explicitly stated.

Amen to that!

Also, "Choose to believe in Christ" is a complete inference and if that were the way we gain union with Christ and eternal life, it would be explicitly stated. It would be crucial to do so. The proof text (one of them) often brings "This day choose life--" in to bolster the ability to choose and adds the word to "believe", "repent", and "whoever believes.

That Passage from the OT however is dealing with a whole different choosing. To remain faithful to the covenant law, that God brought them into and not by their choice, and be blessed, or be unfaithful to the covenant and break the covenant relationship bringing judgment. And the choice was clearly defined.

Here is a sidebar irony. Even dispensationalist A'ists use that passage in defense of libertarian free will---even though they think the covenant with Israel was a dispensation separate from the church which Christ is the head of.

So, I agree 100% that Wesley's view (and all views that are trying to defend what the Bible will not defend) leave out whole swaths of the Bible, never treating it as one continuous story of redemption as it progresses towards its goal. Not bothering with proper hermeneutics or even being concerned to keep all of scripture consistent with all of scripture. Instead of letting scripture interpret scripture, they just decide what they think it means.

 

[Arial]

Or that is what they would have us believe. Statistically speaking, the Church is divided into three parts regarding this position: the RCC/EO pov and those aligned with that tradition, the Reformed pov, and the post Wesleyan methodism/experientialism. The latter just happens to have a large presence in media outside academia (tv/radio/print). They themselves think they are the standard but that is mainly because of their insulation and naivety. They believe what they hear and don't investigate with critical thinking

Yep.

What about them? I don't believe they exist. I do believe many real Christians exist who do not or cannot point to a specific moment of change but changed they are, nonetheless

Oh, I agree. But that is not the type of experience looked for. It is usually expected to be dramatic (and is exaggerated if need be, in the telling), and in my experience with most testimonies of conversion outside RT, it rarely has to do with a change of heart. Instead, it involves visions and feelings. And the experience itself becomes the proof. How quickly we forget that Muhamad, Joseph Smith and Charles Finney relied of visions. Look where Finney got us! And some real experiences are dramatic, and the person knows they are real because of what changed inside of them and began to bear fruit outwardly. Before the altar call, pinpointing the time of conversion was not on the radar.

I know these are rhetorically asked but let's not get far afield of the op. Wesley is the only one who could answer that question for Wesleyan soteriology. I do not believe Wesley intended to establish experientialism as a standard. Theology has progressed a great deal as a consequence and, while I do not know, I believe Wesley would clarify much of his teaching, self-correcting it, if he ever saw what experientialists have done with his methodism.

Good points. The rhetorical nature of the questions was to stress the subjectivity of experientialism.

 

[Josheb]

Also, "Choose to believe in Christ" is a complete inference and if that were the way we gain union with Christ and eternal life, it would be explicitly stated. It would be crucial to do so.

Exactly.

The proof text (one of them) often brings "This day choose life--" in to bolster the ability to choose and adds the word to "believe", "repent", and "whoever believes.

And my typical request of the synergist is to ask for an explicit example in scripture of an unregenerate sinner doing so of his own (still sinfully dead and enslaved fleshly) volition.

1. Start with what is explicitly stated.
2. Work from what is explicitly stated through the inferences that can exegetically be made in a manner consistent with whole scripture.

It's not difficult. The problem is it is not a method taught in synergistic schools.

.....even though they think the covenant with Israel was a dispensation separate from the church which Christ is the head of.

And that is extremely ironic because there's not a single covenant with God that is not Christological, not initiated monergistically by God, not established on the monergistic choosing of its participants by God, the monergistic choosing of participants by God, and not a single request for choices from the participants until after the covenant is established.

So, I agree 100% that Wesley's view (and all views that are trying to defend what the Bible will not defend) leave out whole swaths of the Bible, never treating it as one continuous story of redemption as it progresses towards its goal. Not bothering with proper hermeneutics or even being concerned to keep all of scripture consistent with all of scripture. Instead of letting scripture interpret scripture, they just decide what they think it means.

Yep.


Now, maybe if we can get some participation from @Hobie all of this can be tested (and affirmed).

 

[Hobie]

Amen to that!

Also, "Choose to believe in Christ" is a complete inference and if that were the way we gain union with Christ and eternal life, it would be explicitly stated. It would be crucial to do so. The proof text (one of them) often brings "This day choose life--" in to bolster the ability to choose and adds the word to "believe", "repent", and "whoever believes.

That Passage from the OT however is dealing with a whole different choosing. To remain faithful to the covenant law, that God brought them into and not by their choice, and be blessed, or be unfaithful to the covenant and break the covenant relationship bringing judgment. And the choice was clearly defined.

Here is a sidebar irony. Even dispensationalist A'ists use that passage in defense of libertarian free will---even though they think the covenant with Israel was a dispensation separate from the church which Christ is the head of.

So, I agree 100% that Wesley's view (and all views that are trying to defend what the Bible will not defend) leave out whole swaths of the Bible, never treating it as one continuous story of redemption as it progresses towards its goal. Not bothering with proper hermeneutics or even being concerned to keep all of scripture consistent with all of scripture. Instead of letting scripture interpret scripture, they just decide what they think it means.

Well here's the thing, all these are just 'ideas of what the bible is declaring' that men have come up with and put a 'word' label on it, but they disregard what the Bible says. They just hang up the 'word' label and say this is what God means and its all within this 'word' label and anything that disagrees with this 'word' label is wrong even if its from what Gods says in His Word. Lets start with with one example, 'Predestination'. God knows the end from the beginning, but God does not force anyone to come or to leave from His love and gift of eternal life. Everyone has freewill and chooses accordingly, God knows what they will do much like we know the sun will rise tomorrow, the only difference is He can make it stop or go back. We need to humbly and prayerfully start with Gods Word not our ideas of man, and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, that puts us in Gods hands and He takes us where He desires into the deep things of God. I know that might be a hard thing for some, but thats how it works, not mans ideas, but Gods....

 

[Josheb]

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

How do you know that?

I'm not being snarky. Let's discuss that statement and test it with scripture for its truthfulness. How do you know God does not force anyone to come to His love and gift of eternal life? I am going to ask you to start with a very basic presupposition because of the way that statement is worded. The word "force" implies God would be bringing the person to His love and gift of eternal life against the individual's will.

Where does the Bible state the sinner's will is relevant?

Wesleyan views of salvation assume will is relevant, but is the sinner's will germane at all? You've said people all these are just 'ideas of what the bible is declaring' that men have come up with and put a 'word' label on it, but they disregard what the Bible says. Let's say (for the time being) that statement is correct. Where does the Bible say the will of the sinner is relevant? How do we know that Arminius did not make a ginormous mistake assuming the human volition had to be part of the process and, therefore, God had to somehow create a moment when the sinner was freed from the lethal slavery of sin so the sinnet would not be forced to come to God's love and eternal life? Where does the Bible say that?

Please think about these questions before answering. There will likely be some impulsive thoughts assumed to be the answers but won't withstand critical examination if evaluated beyond the impulse and won't withstand the critiques of those assembled here in this thread. Think about the questions so as to avoid wasting all that time and energy on word labels and things the Bible does not actually, specifically, explicitly state. Don't buy into Arminianism or Wesleyanism any more that Calvinism. Are you willing to challenge yourself to critically examine both sides, all viewpoints, critically and measure them first by what is stated in scripture?

Where does the Bible state God does not force anyone to come to His love and gift of eternal life?

Where does the Bible state the sinner's will (or any volitional agency of the human) is relevant prior to God's gift of eternal life?


.

 

[Arial]

Well here's the thing, all these are just 'ideas of what the bible is declaring' that men have come up with and put a 'word' label on it, but they disregard what the Bible says.

Define the "these" that you refer to by their labels, please.
Show how, within those labels, where and how what the Bible says is being disregarded.

Lets start with with one example, 'Predestination'. God knows the end from the beginning, but God does not force anyone to come or to leave from His love and gift of eternal life.

What does "predestine" mean? Does it mean that since God knows everything, in this case and in your view, therefore he knows who will choose Christ by their own free will. And since he knows they will, he predestines them to? Wouldn't the fact that they will choose of their own free will be them predestining themselves? When, in fact, the Bible says God is the one who predestines them? Let's look at the passage with the Greek words translated as "foreknew" and "predestined" and the word that follows, "called".

For those whom he προέγνω (proegnō), he also προώρισεν (proōrisen), and those he προώρισεν (proōrisen), he also
ἐκάλεσεν (ekalesen)


Foreknew (proegnō) Pro=before; Ginōskō = to know (deep, relational knowledge). In this case, covenantal knowledge.

Predestined (proōrisen) root: (proorizō)
Pro = before
Horizō = to determine, to appoint, to mark out with boundaries
To predestine or ordain beforehand. God's purposeful determining destiny ahead of time.

Called (ekalesen): Root word: (kaleō) To summon.

To be sure, foreknew can mean mere intellectual knowledge. But when interpreting the Bible, we must go by more than definition, but how the word is used in the rest of the Bible.

In one instance the proegnō / proginōskō is used as foresight is Acts 26:5, it refers to human knowledge.

In the OT the Hebrew equivalent is yadaʿ and always referred to God's relational knowledge of people. Paul was a trained Pharisee and Hebrew Bible scholar. He is likely drawing on the relational/covenantal meaning of yadaʿ. Not a neutral, intellectual foreknowledge of future actions.

Yada---to know relationally, intimately, covenantally. God's election and covenant love with Israel. Israel did not elect itself or make a covenant with God. God made a covenant with them.

Proegno---to foreknow. In NT, used of God's prior knowledge of persons (relational/elective).

So, you based your interpretation on emotion ("God doesn't force anyone to come to him") and a presupposition that the only way it is not force is if man has free will. The Reformed doctrine of election/predestination never once infers, implies, or states that "force" is used in Gods' transformation (regeneration) of a person's heart so they can hear and when hearing, believe. in, fact, the doctrine teaches the opposite. It is covenantal love.

On the other hand, what you have above, is me knowing something, but rather than just say it, find out and show, that foreknew it that passage (and nowhere else in the Bible, OT or NT, with the one exception where the Greek word is in a different form, refers to human knowledge, not God's knowledge) is relational knowledge, and not foresight. Which, of course then also allows "predestined" to maintain its actual definition. As opposed to the free will interpretation that ignores its meaning. It does not simply use the passage as a proof text and from that, isolation from all the rest of the Bible, and say, "This is what it means because I say so" was done in the quote I am responding to.

 

[Arial]

. We need to humbly and prayerfully start with Gods Word not our ideas of man, and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, that puts us in Gods hands and He takes us where He desires into the deep things of God. I know that might be a hard thing for some, but thats how it works, not mans ideas, but Gods....

No truer words were ever spoken. So, demonstrate that you are following that advice.

 

[prism]

Well here's the thing, all these are just 'ideas of what the bible is declaring' that men have come up with and put a 'word' label on it, but they disregard what the Bible says. They just hang up the 'word' label and say this is what God means and its all within this 'word' label and anything that disagrees with this 'word' label is wrong even if its from what Gods says in His Word.

So was John Wesley immune to this charge? Without 'word labels', wouldn't the Bible be meaningless?

 

[Carbon]

but God does not force anyone to come or to leave from His love and gift of eternal life. Everyone has freewill and chooses accordingly,

So then, you believe faith is an arbitrary act of the will? You believe man can believe or disbelieve because he chooses to?

 

[Carbon]

He believed and taught Perfectionism. Teaching that a sinner could achieve perfection here in life and not sin any longer.

Also, a true believer in Christ could lose their salvation.

Both false teachings.