Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
It is not side-stepping to very publicly claim in the above post and elsewhere that I WILL not deal with the subject because it has been personalized. You probably need to look at the definition of side-step.
I DIRECTLY answered you that I would not get into it.
I'm amused that you felt the need to deal with the subject anyway. Perhaps you had a hidden agenda. That's between you and God.
You haven't addressed Wesley's point.
Why would the devil try to DEVOUR SOULS if it is impossible with the tulip God for him to do so? He cannot win those who have been chosen. He cannot lose those who have been damned.
It is exactly the same logic as that used by some Christians who believe strongly in the tulip God. They believe that since God has ALREADY CHOSEN and there's nothing they can do or could ever have been done to change that, then there's no sense in worrying about anyone going to heaven or anyone going to hell. It's all set in stone, so "don't worry, be happy."
Present and accounted for.
And a BUMP for my circuit riding great grandpa.
Are you on a circuit/appointment at this time?
I'm one of those ignorant laymen. But I am pursuing additional studies online from your alma mater.
"I hear, honoured sir, you are about to print a sermon on predestination. It shocks me to think of it; what will be the consequences but controversy? If people ask me my opinion, what shall I do? I have a critical part to act, God enable me to behave aright! Silence on both sides will be best. It is noised abroad already, that there is a division between you and me. Oh, my heart within me is grieved..."
Note that Wesley published this sermon even though Whitfield had pleaded with him not to do so in order to preserve unity. Wesley cared nothing for unity, and showed himself to be a schismatic.
Whitfield certainly felt that this sermon was a personal attack against him, he stated "I have been supplanted, despised, censured, maligned, judged by and separated from my nearest, dearest friends." as a result. Take the time to read Whitfield's letter to Wesley (found here). You will notice, I hope, just how gracious and accomodating Whitfield was in this controversy. If you were to take the time to research all of the correspondence between these two men during this period, you would see that Wesley really was a bit hypocritical to heap such praise on Whitfield at his funeral, especially when he took as many pot-shots at him as he did during his life.
And, this is exactly the same type of "logic" that we have refuted several times recently, and that you have confessed does not characterize our position. As a result, why keep bringing it up? You truly are uncharitable, and your words border on slander. Who has the "hidden agenda" here?
You seem so happy to contend that the devil can snatch the souls of God's elect out of His hand, but refuse to answer the question as to whether or not you can be deceived by the self-same devil.
Mighty peculiar. (Seems like a clear-cut case of satanic deception.)
If anything, we could all learn a thing or two about how to conduct ourselves in these doctrinal discussions from the tone and nature of Whitfield's response.
In order to conserve bandwidth, I will not post Whitfield's answer on this thread, but will provide a link that you can follow.
We certainly could Jerry. But while I've pointed out that everything I've read indicates that Whitefield and Wesley came to a peaceful resolve, if not agreement, you're the one to suggest Wesley was hypocritical in his gracious remarks at Whitefield's funeral. (Post #15).
Is that the tone we're setting? My guess is that Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley would hope not.
I would hope that you are correct, but not certain that the link you provided had the correct info. on this topic.
I said it doesn't characterize your position. I do think, however, that it DOES characterize classic calvinism.
You would probably classify yourselves as some kind of neo-calvinist, right? Where do you modify what calvin said? Do you think he'd accept the modifications?
Also, you are now engaged in a personal attack of your own; will I be as gracious as Whitfield? I suspect its because you can't deal with the argument, so, therefore, you must attack me. You should reconsider.
Matthew 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
Pharisee.......hmmmmmm!
Adam had free will when he was first created, so how could it be a 'sin' or the result of a sin.
It is a gift of a loving God. It is sin that enslaves us and Christ who frees us!
There is nothing wrong with being a believer in the one, true God. However, when YOU believe in Jesus, you pass immediately from death to eternal life.
Not Calvinism but Hyper-Calvinism!
6. If you believe Pharaoh, or any one man upon earth, was created for this end, -- to be damned, -- you hold all that has been said of predestination.
Not Calvinism but Hyper-Calvinism!
10. But if this be so, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching -- to save should -- is void with regard to them; and it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved: They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise; so that in either case our preaching is vain, as you hearing is also vain.
So, Wesley really has no clue what Calvinist really believe. He keeps smashing his head against Hyper-Calvinism.
11. This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself.
Wesley really choked pretty hard on all of this.
17. Again: How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offense or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings!
Wesley seems bent on nothing more than tearing down his opponent through misrepresentation. He really seemed blinded by his zeal to tear apart Calvinism that he never realized that he wasn't even arguing against Calvinism. The only thing which doesn't make the above statement Pelagain heresy is the word preceding.
He gave himself a ransom for all;" (1 Tim. 2:6;)
BTW, in his zeal, he never stopped to consider that if this truly is all in this passage that 1 Tim 2 is teaching that we should pray for the very overthrow of THE PROPHECIES OF GOD!
Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually?
Do you suppose that Wesley ever stopped to consider that Satan only has a much power as it pleases God for him to have?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.