Whitefield/Wesley & Predestination

whoremonger Wesleys sermon, authorise scanty Grace was published in August, 1739. In it he attempted to establish how beau ideals mildness is imp all(prenominal) told oerished in exclusively and devoid for wholly. His mental object was self-colouredly assumeed toward the tenet of fate and chooseion, which was held to by many thinkrs in Wesleys day. He meand that this teaching was a sedate one and that it blasphemed the very person and reputation of theology. In response to Wesley, George Whitefield wrote A earn from George Whitefield to the Rev. John Wesley. Whitefield saw Wesleys precept of wanton people deck as beingness the one that was blasphemous and mordacious to the religion.He argued that the rule book any the office presents the dogma of prede boundaryination, and that any belief that stated some(a) differentwise led to the heresy of universalism. The dickens men had worked together in the ministry for quite near prison term wh en these two documents were published. Wesley adopted many evangelical descrys of deliverymanianity when he was converted, unless he retained some of his pre-conversion beliefs concerning preordination. When Whitefield left England on a trip, Wesley quick published his sermon on free grace. When Whitefield returned, he was determined to respond and devise the record straight. Both of these men presented strong personal line of credits supporting both of their views. It is difficult to differentiate the two equ completelyy, because Whitefield unless addresses received issues in Wesleys sermon and non its entirety. That being said, I believe that George Whitefields agate lines concerning predetermination and soteriology atomic number 18 superior to John Wesleys due to how he handles leger and logical greenght. Wesleys sermon on free grace had six bring points.For the purpose of this paper, I induce s chosened for vaticinateing only the points that Whitefield direct ly addressed in his letter of response. In doing so, I manage to make appargonnt that Whitefield had a much(prenominal) stronger argument and a much to a greater extent(prenominal) biblical understanding of predetermination in soteriology. Wesley begins his sermon with a fair and hi-fi assessment of the possible views a person might turn out, concerning predestination. He clearly shows that date many throng may produce that they only defy to certain move of the tenet, they ultimately believe in the whole.He defines the doctrine as, As virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible predominate of God, one part of mankind be inf onlyibly saved, and the embossment inf allibly damned it being out of the question that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved. This is a very good and biblical translation of predestination, but the implications Wesley draws from it atomic number 18 non. The basic hallucination that Wesley conclud es is that predestination eliminates the need for evangelism. He says, Preaching is unnecessary to them that are picked for they, whether with preaching or without, result infallibly be saved. In other countersigns, if God get out unconditionally chosen some citizenry, therefore it is unnecessary for those people to be evangelized. The same goes for the non-elect. If they are to be unconditionally damned to pitfall, then evangelism ordain befool no effect in saving(a) them. In predestination calmly Considered, he says His ministers indeed, as they go to sleep non the event of things, may be true in offering redemption to all persons, according to their general commission, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. besides how can God or deliverer be sincere in send them with this commission, to offer his grace to all men, if God has non provided such grace for all men, no, non so much as conditionally? I believe that Whitefield has a m uch clearer understanding of ledger when he responds to Wesleys statement concerning evangelism. He asks, Hath non God, who hath appointed redemption for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the war cry as a sum to leave them to it? Whitefield understood that evangelism is the means that God uses to solve His elect to salvation.Whitefield goes on reflection, Since we do not know who are elect and who are reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the rule book may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. Whitefield could see how secure the newsworthiness is for both the elect and reprobate. scripture supports Whitefield on this matter, especially in Romans 10. capital of Minnesota explains that faith comes from checking, and hearing through the word of Christ, and earlier he asks, How are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? The playscript clearly s tates that the only way that the elect go away come to faith in Christ is through evangelism. John Calvin also viewed evangelism and predestination in the same percipient as Whitefield. He concluded Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it give come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peaceableness even severe rebuke testament be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it get out be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined. Calvin would give way supported Whitefields view of evangelism over Wesleys for certain. The assist point of argument concerns predestination and sanctity. Wesley says, Predestination has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general for it wholly takes absent those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, t he hope of rising reward and fear of punishment, the hope of nirvana and fear of hell. According to Wesley, those who pass water to the doctrine of predestination do not ready the same desire to seek holiness as those who do not hold to it.He even makes the assertion that followers of predestination are more temperamental, especially when confronted with show bundle to their doctrine. I believe that Whitefield has the stronger argument when h simply asks how this can be so? Wesley ultimately presents no proof of his assertions, but instead makes accusations from what Whitefield suspects is an experience of debating men who hold to predestination. Those men must pass had a strong religious zeal that Wesley misunderstand as narrow-mindedness and hostility that flowed from their magisterial beliefs.Wesley explains that it is expected that those who contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints will bring strong opposition to error. Thirdly, Wesley says predestin ation tends to destroy the cherish of religion, the happiness of Christianity. This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobated, or who only suspect or fear it. He claims that those who hold to the doctrine of predestination do not have the comfort of the authorisation of salvation since they can never be sure if they are one of the elect or not.They will at some point and time become questionable of their salvation, even when they have the pick up of the divine Spirit. Wesley also claims that many people throughout the world who do not hold to predestination enjoy the uninterrupted witness of his Spirit, the continual light of his countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many month or years, to this day. formerly again, I believe that Whitefield tears down Wesleys argument when he asks, How does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed resource? In other words, how could Wesley have understood the ticker of a person who believes in predestination if he never believed in the doctrine himself? He presents a selection from the reformers that show how they were holders of predestination and yet still described the Christian life as being rise of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the works of the Spirit of Christ Evidently the heart of the elect is not full of excitation and despair after all.In response to Wesleys belief that some people in the world experience uninterrupted assurance, Whitefield asks how he could ever have known such a thing. There is no way that Wesley could have made contact with people all over the world that had these experiences. Whitefield understood that everyone goes through surmises and never as a life-long period of assurance of salvation. Even rescuer Christ experienced times of doubt in the garden, and what greater moment of shabbiness has ever been experienced than that of His time on the cross, crying, My God My GodWhy has t thou forsaken me? Wesley then asks, How uncomfortable a horizon is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offense or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to perfect(a) burnings To Wesley, the doctrine of predestination is a loathly one because it condemns men to hell that are un deserving of such punishment. He does not see genuine sin as being the cause for peoples damnation. In his work, Predestination Calmly Considered, he says, Perhaps you will say they are not condemned for actual but for original sin.What do you mean by this term? The sin which that raptus committed in paradise? That this is imputed to all men, I quitBut that any will be damned for this alone, I allow not. Whitefield had a better understanding of this matter. He viewed all men as being deserving of hell due to the imparted sin of Adams rebellion in the garden. He charges that if Wesley denies the doctrine of original sin, then he must take on the doctrine of reprobation for whether Wesley believed it or not the Word of God abides faithful The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. The final issue of debate is over the doctrine of predestination and the Bible. Wesley says, Predestination hath also a direct and manifest tendency to annul the whole Christian Revelation. The point which the wisest of the raw unbelievers most industriously labour to prove, is, that the Christian Revelation is not necessary. According to Wesley, the Bible is not necessary because the elect would influence faith without it since their salvation is decreed by God.This is very similar to his argument concerning predestination and evangelism. Whitefield again has a great repartee saying, It is only by the Christian divine revelation that we are acquainted with Gods design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is settles in the everlasting cartel that this salvation shall be applied to the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. H e goes on saying that the Bible is a necessity because it is only through Scripture that Gods eternal decrees of salvation take effect.We cannot separate Gods means from His ends or His ends from His means. Wesley then goes on to say that Scripture in light of predestination contradicts itself. He uses the case of Jacob have I hit the sackd, but Esau I have hated, as implying that God in a real(a) sense hated Esau, and all the reprobated, from all eternity. He sees this as a contradiction due to Scripture saying that God is love. He did not view this passage as being a literal hating of the persons of Jacob and Esau, but instead of the temperament within them.In Predestination Calmly Considered, he states, According to Scripture Gods unchangeableness of devotion properly and primarily regards tempers and not persons and persons only as those tempers found in them. I believe Whitefield has a better argument since he holds to a more literal interpretation of the Bible without co ntradiction. He argues that it is not changing Gods reference to love Jacob and hate Esau. He says, efficiency not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show blessing to Jacob and the electand yet at the same time do the reprobate no ill-use?But you say, God is love. And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same mercy to all? In the same way, Wesley argues that, in the eyeball of the person who holds to predestination, the passage I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy means that God is love only to the elect and not to the non-elect. He says that this is in direct contradiction to Psalm 1149, saying, The Lord is engaging unto every man and his mercy is over all his works. If God is loving to everyone, then how can He show mercy to only some?Whitefield says that this mercy mentioned is not saving mercy. He is loving to all in that he sends his rain upon the mephistophelean and upon the good, but He only sends his saving grace to the elect. He has the right to do t his because, as Whitefield puts it, He is a debtor to none, and has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. He uses Romans 915 and hejira 3319 to back up this statement I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Overall, Wesley tries to tear down the doctrine of predestination in light of his doctrine of free grace. To Wesley grace is free to every individual person in the world, and it is on the basis of acceptance or rejection of that grace that a person is sent to hell or heaven. He explains the unchangeable decrees of God in light of free grace in Predestination Calmly Considered He has unchangeably decreed to save dedicated believers, and to condemn obstinate, impenitent unbelievers. According to Wesley, a persons eternal urgency lies solely in whether or not he accepts Gods free grace. I believe Whitefield sums Wesleys argument up well when he states, You on the face of it make salvation depend not on Gods free grace, but on mans free-will. If this is the case then like Whitefield said, It is more probable Jesus Christ would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the harvest-festival of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be in vain, and all the invitations for people to believe in him would also be in vain. Both Wesley and Whitefield knew the Scriptures well, but I believe it is Whitefield that truly understood how important election is in the believers theology.Wesley well-tried to use Scripture to back up his points, but his interpretation of passages led him into the rule of universalism. I believe that due to this dangerous direction it is Whitefield who had the correct understanding of predestination and soteriology. On my honor, I have uncomplete given nor taken improper attention in completing this assignment. Word play 2455 1 . ibidem 2 . Wesley, Pred estination Calmly Considered, 268. 3 . Whitefield, George. A earn from? George Whitefield? to the? Rev. Mr. John Wesley, 59. 4 . Ibid. 5 .Calvin, John, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London James Clarke and Co. , Limited, 1961), 138. 6 . Wesley. rid Grace, 117. 7 . Whitefield. 61. 8 . Wesley. Free Grace, 119. 9 . Ibid. 10 . Whitefield. 62. 11 . Ibid. 12 . Wesley. Free Grace, 119. 13 . Wesley. Predestination, 263. 14 . Whitefield. 68. 15 . Wesley. Free Grace, 120. 16 . Whitefield. 68. 17 . Wesley. Free Grace, 120. 18 . Wesley. Predestination, 279. 19 . Whitefield. 69. 20 . Ibid. 21 . Wesley. Predestination, 279. 22 . Whitefield. 71. 23 . Ibid.