[Chrysostom]

Univ. Student has rightly observed that most of the more vocal members on this board are Calvinists. He believes that the Wesleyans have not been given a fair chance becuase it is 1000000 Calvinists against just a few Wesleyans. This thread is the chance to change that. No Calvinist other than myself is allowed to post an argument. If another Calvinist does post an argument, I will ask the moderators to delete that post. To all Wesleyans: If a Calvinist other than myself posts an argument, you are not expected to answer, and even encouraged to ignore that argument.

So, this is the chance: I will argue in favor of Calvinism, and the Wesleyans will argue in favor of Wesleyanism.

Sound fair?

Wesley on God’s grace

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Wesley/walk.stm

Works of Piety

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Wesley/disciple.stm

Works of mercy

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Wesley/mission.stm

Christian perfection

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Wesley/perfection.stm


While I cant stay around here and debate such an involved topic, if anyone is truly interested these links should give you a good starting ground for Wesley’s Theology. Wesley never really intended to start a new denomination but wanted to call people back to a true Christian life. Enjoy.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/

Something for those with more interest, this a list of some of Wesley’s sermons, seems like he could talk for a long time.

[Chrysostom]

(Donny) What is Wesleyanism? Im asking this just in case the conversation gets off too quick for me to get a good idea.

(Me) Most "Arminians" today are nearer the Wesleyan school of thought. Wesley taught that man had become totally depraven by the Fall, but God supernaturally restored free will through prevenient grace. He also emphasized Falling from Grace.



(BeautifulMess) Could someone please delete Donny's post?

(Me) I think that a formal question like that isn't really out of place, since Donny wasn't making an argument and nobody else has made any arguments yet



(BeautifulMess) Anyhow....WHO is a Wesleyan? I don't know of any on this board.

(Me) Univ. Student, for one. I would imagine that those raised in the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition were probably raised Wesleyan.



(raz) I would really like to see this thread come to fruition, because I have questions myself that need to be answered. If noone else challenges, I'm going to, just on the basis that I am a member of a Weslyan church and have somewhat of a grasp on Weslyan theology. Sure, it will be quite pathetic, but a learning experience nonetheless.

(Me) If you'd like, we can have many debates in this thread. So, it doesn't really matter if anyone else "challenges." As for being "quite pathetic," I don't care who wins or loses -- what I care about is that we learn from the discussion.


(offlineparkway) perhaps sometime down the road I will be able to debate John fully on C/A/OT/M et al.

(Me) A baby is much more important than I am!!!

What is C/A/OT/M? I don't understand the OT/M.



(Ted Logan) I guess I don't fit. Are there any Wesleyans out there? I thought my excellent friend Bill was Wesleyan.

(Me) I don't know whether Univ. Student had in mind Wesleyans specifically, or just non-Calvinists (and non-sacerdotalists, of course). If you'd like to start another thread, go right ahead



(gethedge) My guess is that when John said "Wesleyanism" he meant it as synonymous with "Arminianism"

(Me) Univ. Student specified Wesleyanism. I personally don't care if we discuss Wesleyanism, Arminianism, or anything else. I just wanted to give him the chance to nail me down so that there aren't 100000 Calvinists.

[Chrysostom]

Ahhh gotcha.

Please, please, please don't go Open Theist

Molinism I can accept. At least there is some amount of sense to it. Open Theism just needs to be burned.

[Univ. Student]

Wow. Thanks, and I really mean that.

Now, if I may.

There are some key differences between Wesleyanism and True Arminianism. True Arminianism robbed God of nearly all His sovereignty, whereas Wesleyanism tries to integrate the notion that God is all-powerful with the concept of man's free will.

A true Arminian believes that man can choose God apart from God working first. I do reject this idea. The term "Prevenient Grace" best describes it. God works, subtley speaking to the heart of the sinner and calling him to salvation. It is then up to that person to either accept the gracious call or reject it.

One thing held in common is the belief that a person can no longer be saved. It is not a matter of us being plucked out of God's hand, but we ourselves jumping out of it. However, an Arminian will say that if you mess up even once your soul is on the line. I don't see where scripture substantiates that.

I don't believe salvation is ever lost, as if it has been misplaced. Usually when something is lost it is done on accident. To turn your back on God is not an accident, but a decision.

Another common point is that salvation is to all who will call on the name of Jesus. Both Arminians and Wesleyans believe salvation was provided for all, and not for a select few. The elect in the Bible refer to either the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, or the Church in general in the new. And God's blessing was not limited to these entities, but were intended to be used to show others how to live their lives the way God wants.

Anyway, this sums up what Wesleyan theologians believe. I know it is brief, but to post any longer would kinda defeat the purpose. So if you have any additional questions from the Wesleyan end of things, I will be happy to answer.

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by Univ. Student

True Arminianism robbed God of nearly all His sovereignty, whereas Wesleyanism tries to integrate the notion that God is all-powerful with the concept of man's free will.

Arminianism Point #3:

"Man cannot 'think, will nor do anything that is truly good,' and that includes 'saving faith', but must be regenerated."

This, being "True Arminianism", since it was one of the points of the Remonstrance, a protest against Calvinism.

[Chrysostom]

Would you like to present an argument in favor of Wesleyanism or against Calvinism?

[Chrysostom]

(parkway) This, being "True Arminianism", since it was one of the points of the Remonstrance, a protest against Calvinism.

(Me) The one ability the Remonstrants fervently supported for the unregenerate man was his ability to resist or cooperate with the grace given to him.

[Danny]

Aw crap. What the heck. I'm bored. I'll be a Wesleyan for a day.


On God's universal love and atonement:

John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Here we see that because God loved the world (presumably the entire world--literally every single person--as we don't see any reason to assume otherwise, given the context), that He sent His Son to die. it only makes sense to take from the context of this verse, that God sent His Son to die for the entire world, not only those who would believe.

1 Timothy 2
4 who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Here we see, again, an example of God's love for the entire world, and His desire for all to be saved. This only supports my theory that "the world" in John 3:16 is literally referring to every single person.


On falling from grace:

Hebrews 10
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.

Does this one really need explaining?

James 2
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
[...]
17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself
[...]
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
[...]
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

It's obvious what this passage is saying. Yes, initial salvation is by grace through faith alone, and not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8, 9), but once one has received salvation, he must continue in his Christian walk by works, to retain his salvation (I'm not sure if that's explicit Wesleyan theology, but it's what a Sunday School teacher at my old pentecostal church taught, so I'm going with it).


Election by foreknowledge:

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren;

God's predestination of the elect is based on the fact that He knew before the foundations of the earth that this group of people would have faith and would accept the free gift of salvation.


And finally, let us not forget:

Jude 6
18 So God, being sovereign, holy, just, but above all else, loving and merciful, gifted all of mankind with the autonomous will (once endowed with prevenient grace) to freely choose for himself whether to accept the gift of salvation, or reject Christ and damn himself to eternal hell against the will of God.

[Chrysostom]

(N1ghthawk) Oops. I started posting that before Univeristy Student came along. I'd be happy to go away now, if you'd like....

(Me) I was hoping to have this discussion with people who either a) have serious concerns, or b) are really Wesleyans/Arminians. If Univ. Student would like, I can answer your post. Conversely, he could incorporate your arguments into his own.

Univ. Student -- tell me which you would like to happen. I'm trying not to clutter up this thread

Although, Danny has me cornered with the infamous Jude 6:18 cite!!

[Univ. Student]

Well, I think Jude sums it up nicely. God reigns sovereign, but allows free will to be exercised.

I was thinking about this earlier today, and I wanted to see what you thought. I don't believe our positions are as apart as is assumed.

Say you and I are on opposite ends of the same street, and both of us witness a large truck crash into a light post. From your angle it looks as though the truck driver became eradic all of a sudden and for no reason slammed into the lightpost, and this is what you tell the officer when he questions you.

I, at another angle, see that there was a person in the road whom the truck driver was trying to avoid, yet from your angle you did not see this person. From my point of view the truck driver was not being eradic, but trying to make a bad situation from becoming worse.

Now, are you wrong? No. You report what you saw.

Was I wrong? No. I just had a different view of the events.

In some ways it is like theology. Some people have your view, and some people have mine. We both can agree that there was a big truck, it swerved, hit a light post, and we were asked to give our accounts. The precise details however are different.

From your perspective you see God's sovereignty, and not man's free will. Now I see both God's sovereignty and man's free will, just like you didn't see that person, but I did.

I guess to sum it all up, what I am saying is just because you didn't see the person in the street does not mean the person wasn't there. Even though you don't see man's free will does not mean it is not there.

I know that this probably came out bad, but hey I hope you have a little bit better understanding of my position.

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

(parkway) This, being "True Arminianism", since it was one of the points of the Remonstrance, a protest against Calvinism.

(Me) The one ability the Remonstrants fervently supported for the unregenerate man was his ability to resist or cooperate with the grace given to him.

I understand your point, but I was responding to this:

True Arminianism robbed God of nearly all His sovereignty

Which I felt was too extreme of a statement. Robbing God of nearly all His sovereignty? First of all, that statement is strange because it says we can do something that obviously we as humans cannot: take something from God which He alone has the ability to have. Secondly, it's wrong.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by parkway

I understand your point, but I was responding to this:



Which I felt was too extreme of a statement. Robbing God of nearly all His sovereignty? First of all, that statement is strange because it says we can do something that obviously we as humans cannot: take something from God which He alone has the ability to have. Secondly, it's wrong.

I found the statement a little funny, because you can't really have varying degrees of sovereignty. Sovereignty implies an absolute, or a highest power. You can't lessen that value without removing it entirely (not a Calvinist argument...just a speculation, really).

[psalm63adam]

You can if the one who is completely sovereign limits his power. That way humans aren't "taking" or "robbing" God of his sovereignty.