The Real John Wesley

From: http://aaronthelevite.blogspot.com/2010/09/real-john-wesley-part-1.html

I picked up this book [George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century, by Arnold A. Dallimore] a while ago and greatly recommend it. It's a biography about one of the greatest evangelists that has ever lived, George Whitefield. His life and achievements in the Lord, however, are little known, and are seemingly overshadowed by the reputation and accomplishments of John Wesley. But, as the author if this book clearly demonstrates, historians and biographers can be very selective and biased at times, favoring and focusing upon one individual of their liking, while completely ignoring another--and sometimes even going so far as to slander the reputation of the other with false information (whether this is intentional or not is for the Lord to judge). Such has been the case with the man of God, George Whitefield. Throughout the past two centuries or so, there have been myriads of John Wesley books published, mainly written by Arminian biographers. Some of these books extol Wesley to a very unhealthy degree (I even remember one that stated on the back cover that "God needed a man like Wesley"!!!). Their bias and favoritism is evident, especially with the secondary role they give to Whitefield in the 18th Century awakenings in England and America. Not so with this book, however. It reveals the documented truth about this forgotten hero of the faith, and in so doing unavoidably lifts the proverbial rug, exposing the many inconsistencies of his much revered friend, John Wesley--faults and failings often overlooked by many a biographer.

Hence, I have decided to post some excerpts of the book here to 1) bring a little balance to the spotless, golden image of Wesley that we're often presented with, and 2) to make known the true humility and servanthood of the man, George Whitefield, who by the grace of God alone "labored even more than all of them". May the Lord Jesus Christ receive glory through this.

____________________________________________________________

Chapter 6: Doctrinal Differences and Sad Divisions(from George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century)

It has long been recognized that there were doctrinal differences between John Wesley and George Whitefield, and the point we have now reached in our narrative is that at which a separation came about between the two men. Since this affair played a highly important part in their lives, we have no choice but to look into it. It has, however, generally been reported in a manner strongly biased in Wesley’s favor, and therefore we must attempt to rectify matters to some extent.

Wesley separated first from the Moravians. He was at the time in association with the Fetter Lane Religious Society, but this body, under the instruction of Peter Bohler, was fast becoming Moravian in doctrine and practice. Bohler, however, soon left for America, and Wesley was not chosen to succeed him.
Count Zindendorf, the gracious but lordly commander of Moravianism, sent instead a man from Germany, Philip Henry Molther. Molther assumed that most members of the Society were not truly converted and, stressing the Stillness Teaching, advocated waiting in quietness till God should plant faith within them. He suggested also that they refrain from partaking of the Sacrament of the Church of England lest they trust in it for salvation.
Some of the people, however, carried this teaching to an extreme. They refused to even attend the services of the Church of England, and a few went so far as to declare they no longer believed in doing good works, lest these also be depended upon to save them.
To Wesley this attitude was a denial of the function of the Church, and in the meetings of the Society he contended against it. In his striving he exaggerated these tendencies and charged that they characterized the entire Moravian movement. He finally led nineteen people out of the Fetter Lane hall and into a Society he had recently formed in a building he termed the Foundery. Thus he also removed himself from being subject to the superior rank of Count Zindendorf.
Wesley next separated from Whitefield. Upon leaving Bristol Whitefield had “conjured” him, said Wesley, “to enter into no disputes, least of all concerning Predestination…” (1) Predestination is a doctrine essential to “Calvinism,” a theological system he knew Whitefield favored. But Wesley had been taught, particularly by his mother, to believe the opposite system, known as “Arminianism.”
A recent development, however, made Whitefield’s counsel, “enter into no disputes”, difficult for Wesley to follow. Under Wesley’s ministry people had begun to undergo convulsion-like attacks, causing them to lie on the ground writhing, and he reports instances in which four strong men could not hold one who was subject to this experience. Charles Wesley spoke of the experience as “the fits,” and Whitefield also expressed his dislike of it. These inexplicable events took place only under John Wesley’s ministry, and he was certain that they were supernatural signs which God was effecting through him alone.
Thus far Wesley’s position in the evangelistic work was secondary. Whitefield had the great congregations; he had begun the open-air ministry and had thrust Wesley into undertaking it too. But Wesley possessed inherited traits that made it natural for him to desire prime position, and it was this ability that God later used in making him the leader that he became. But as Robert Southey stated, “If he was incapable of bearing with an equal, Wesley could as little brook a superior,” (2) and it was not surprising that he would seek to make himself superior to Whitefield, as he had to Count Zindendorf and as he would later to Lady Huntington.
In the sermon, which he termed “Free Grace,” (3) Wesley began by defining predestination. He did not state some recognized definition, but gave it a meaning of his own, and then declared that all who hold the doctrine must hold it in the same extreme sense. He then went on to assert concerning predestination,

It is a doctrine full of blasphemy, of such blasphemy as I should dread to mention, but the honour of our gracious God and the cause of truth, will not suffer me to be silent…I will mention a few of the horrible blasphemies contained in this horrible doctrine.
This doctrine represents our blessed Lord, “Jesus Christ the righteous” as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity.
This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust…

Having made these assertions, Wesley adopted for the sake of argument a position in which he supposed the doctrine of predestination to be true, and from that position he thus addressed the Devil:

Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needles and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that He doeth it more effectively? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers canst only assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell!

O how would the enemy of God and man rejoice to hear these things were so! How would he cry aloud and spare not! How would he lift up his voice and say, “To your tents, O Israel! Flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly perish!” But whither will ye flee? Into heaven? He is there. Down to hell? He is there also. Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent tyrant…

We do Wesley no wrong in assessing his motives in separating from the Moravians and from Whitefield. He definitely believed the Moravians were at fault in their failure to use the Sacrament of the Church of England; and even though he had not correctly understood Calvinism, he was sincerely certain it was erroneous. But he also possessed a sense of his own superiority and a mighty ambition, and these tendencies were basic to his actions.
Wesley shortly went to London, and Whitefield had him preach immediately to a great audience. “The Lord give him ten thousand times more success than He has given me,” (4) he prayed, and he went on to have him preach also to his Moorfields and Kennington congregations.
Wesley returned to Bristol, but when Whitefield heard of his sermon he wrote to him saying, “I hear, Honoured Sir, that you are about to print a sermon against predestination. It shocks me to think of it! What will be the consequences but controversy? ...Silence on both sides will be best.” (5)
However, in his declaration, “Here I fix my foot! On this I join issue with every assessor of it!” Wesley had vowed contention. The lot had said, “Preach and Print,” and it would not be long before he sent this divisive sermon throughout the land.
Wesley now began also to declare a still more divisive doctrine, that which he named “Christian Perfection.” (6)
He did not, however, clearly define this teaching. Rather he left it in two forms, and they were contradictory. It could mean merely a high state of Christian maturity, and, of course, on this definition there was no difference of opinion. But it could also mean a state of entire sinlessness, and concerning this the strongest of differences existed. Yet it was this latter meaning that Wesley constantly presented, and this was the doctrine’s only raison d’être.
Whitefield hard various of Wesley’s followers claim that they were perfect, declaring that they had not sinned in so many weeks or months, and to him the assertion was both un-Scriptural and dangerous.
Personal holiness was an important element of Whitefield’s daily life. Statements to this effect abound in his letters and sermons, and he summed up his attitude in saying,

Every grace that is in the blessed Jesus is to be transplanted into our hearts; we are to be delivered from the power of sin but not from the indwelling and being of sin in this life. Hereafter we are to be preserved blameless, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

Howell Harris’ views in this matter agreed entirely with those of Whitefield, and during these days Harris exhorted a friend,

Rest not till you have the Spirit of God continually bearing witness with your spirit that you are born of God; …see that faith grows, and then Love, Meekness, Brokenness of heart, Godly sorrow, Resignation of will, Humility, Holy fear, watchfulness, tenderness of conscience, and all other graces will grow.

These doctrinal differences enabled Wesley to begin a cause of his own—his own branch of Methodism. He erected a small building at Bristol, the New Room, and had Whitefield come and join together the two main Societies. Using it as his Bristol meeting-place, he termed his movement “The United Societies.” As we have seen, he also acquired a building in London, the Foundery, and this he made his headquarters. Though Charles opposed the convulsion experiences, he agreed to join John on other matters, and together they pursued their cause with unremitting zeal.
During these months Whitefield entered into a friendship with a young lady, Elizabeth Delamotte. Her father, Thomas Delamotte, was the master of a grand mansion, Blendon Hall, at Bexley, a few miles southeast of London. Thomas also operated a sugar-importing business in London, and while there he and members of his family attended the Fetter Lane Society. Elizabeth and her sister had professed conversion under the influence of Charles Wesley, and the home frequently resounded with the singing of hymns and the voice of prayer.
Whitefield was then expecting at any time to board the vessel that would carry him to America, and he needed to be near the downriver ports. Thus, at Thomas’ invitation he became a guest at Blendon Hall, but ranged out daily on his ministry. He had never allowed himself a close friendship with any member of the opposite sex, but now, although he fought against the tendency, he found an affection for Elizabeth forcing itself into his heart.
As the time of his departure drew near, knowing that he would be out of England for a year or more, Whitefield overlooked Wesley’s divisive actions and informed his numerous followers in Bristol, Gloucester, and London that Wesley would lead them during his absence. Then, on Monday, August 13, 1739, he dined with the Delamottes, of whom he speaks as “my dear weeping friends,” and they accompanied him to Gravesend where his vessel was ready to sail.
Thus, with these two matters upon his mind—his dread of the division being caused by Wesley and his affection for Elizabeth Delamotte—Whitefield set out on his second visit to America.

____________________________________________________________

1. John Wesley’s Letters, Volume 1, p. 302.
2. Robert Southey, Life of Wesley, Volume 2 (London: Longmans 1858), p. 208.
3. Sermon “Free Grace,” found in various editions of Wesley’s Works, and in Sermons on Several Occasions by the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Volume 3 (London: Mason,, 1847), p. 359; Whitefield: Life and Times, pp. 310-313.
4. Ibid., p.315.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., pp. 316, 317. Also John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London: Epworth, n.d.) pp. 15, 16.

A man may be rightly judged by
the glory he brings to GOD in
serving the cause of the cross
and our Savior. Wesley's zeal
and passion for Christ are a
matter of record. He and
Whitefield were mightily used
of GOD to stir the sleeping
Church and bring revival!!

Whatever people mean by "Sinless Perfection". If that doctrine teaches that it is impossible to sin, it obviously is not biblical, for the Bible teaches no such thing. But, on the other hand, if it teaches it is possible not to sin, then a simple reading in the Scriptures would prove it's truth. I believe that Wesley approved the latter.
In fact, we will not see revival before such teaching takes place again in the church.
All those whom God used in to bring revival such as, Jonathan Edwards, Goerge Whitefield, Wesley, Finney and others were poeple that held a high view of the Holiness of God and His demands for holiness in His people.

"Be ye holy even as I am holy." Saith the Lord.

The Real John Wesley Part 2

On the last post about Wesley, we examined the life of this fallible, human preacher, and especially the details of his life pertaining to his separation from George Whitefield. A chapter from the book, George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century, revealed John Wesley's insistence on contention with Whitefield, his predisposition to, and desire for, the preeminent role among his brethren, his slight exaggerations in describing the actions and beliefs of those with whom he was in disagreement, his misunderstanding of the Calvinistic viewpoint of the doctrine of Predestination, and the propagation of his newly formed, and often inconsistent, doctrine of sinless perfection.

Again, the purpose of this series of posts is not to attack and defame, but to present a balanced image of the 18th Century preacher, and remove Wesley from the pedestal that we as human beings are so often prone to place godly men of the past on.

That being said, the following excerpt further reveals the grieving details of Wesley's division and contention with George Whitefield, and consequently also reveals the humility of Whitefield, and the great love and forgiveness that he had for his two dear friends, John and Charles Wesley.
__________________________________________________

Chapter 10: Whitefield’s Darkest Hour

We have seen that there already were doctrinal differences between Wesley and Whitefield. When Whitefield returned to England, these differences brought about a separation between them. The truth of this matter is often distorted, for although professed reports of it have frequently been published, almost all are so strongly biased in Wesley’s favor that both his and Whitefield’s actions are very falsely presented.

Accordingly, as much as both writer and reader may find the subject distasteful, if we are not to let falsehoods continue to cloud a most noble portion of Whitefield’s life, we have no choice but to look into this matter. We do so, however, very briefly, noticing merely the chief facts.
One of Whitefield’s first activities after reaching London was meeting with his old friend, Charles Wesley. John was out of town at the time. Of course, the doctrinal differences were discussed, and the likelihood of schism was recognized. Whitefield stated, “It would have melted any heart to have heard Mr. Charles Wesley and me weeping, after prayer, that if possible the breach might be averted.” (1) But Charles was as strongly against the doctrine of election as Whitefield was for it, and as adamant in favor of sinless perfection as Whitefield was opposed to it. Charles refused to have any further cooperation with Whitefield, and accordingly they separated. But we shall rejoice when, ten years later, Charles’ doctrinal convictions changed to some extent and he came into a considerable measure of agreement with Whitefield. They then again enjoyed a rich friendship, and this continued until Whitefield was removed from him by death.

On Whitefield’s first Sunday in London, a burst of enthusiasm brought some thousands to hear him both at Moorfields and Kennington Common. But the enthusiasm quickly waned, and on the weekdays his congregations numbered merely two or three hundred. Moreover, he saw many of his former hearers rush by with their fingers in their ears, and several of them later informed him this had been Wesley’s instruction to them to prevent them from hearing heretical doctrine.

The loss of Whitefield’s host of hearers not only curtailed his gospel ministry, but also robbed him of the opportunity to collect for the support of the orphans. Moreover, he had expected that a sum of money would be awaiting him from the sale of the volumes of his sermons, but he found that James Hutton, his publisher, had become a Moravian and refused to sell any literature that did not agree with Moravian teachings.

A particular sorrow arose from the fact that William Seward had died. Some few months earlier, in accompanying Howell Harris as he conducted an open-air meeting in Wales, Seward had suffered a severe physical injury at the hands of a mob. But he soon went out again to another meeting, and as the stones were hurled he shouted, “Better endure this than hell!” In a few days’ time his body weakened, and he entered his heavenly home. He has long been spoken of as “The first Methodist martyr.”
Seward, however, had recently undertaken another £350 debt in the name of the Orphan House, and not only was Whitefield responsible to pay it, but he was threatened with imprisonment if he failed to do so. His creditors gloated over the opportunity seemingly before them, and he was in constant danger of arrest till in a miraculous manner the money became available. Moreover, although Seward had made himself jointly responsible for the maintenance of Bethesda, he died without making a will, and the whole responsibility fell upon Whitefield.

Whitefield’s chief sorrow, however, arose from the opposition of John and Charles Wesley. “…Many, very many of my spiritual children,” he wrote, “who at my last departure from England would have plucked out their own eyes to have given them to me, are so prejudiced by the dear Messrs. W’s dressing up the doctrine of election in such horrible colours, that they will neither hear, see, nor give me the least assistance: Yes, some of them send threatening letters that God will speedily destroy me.” (2) Yet he still spoke of “…my dear, dear old friends, Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, whom I still love as my own soul.” (3)

Nevertheless, Whitefield was not without help. A company of friends began building a large wooden shed in the Moorfields district that would shield its hearers from rain and cold. Since the location was not far from Wesley’s Foundery, Whitefield refused it. But being reminded that he had been first to preach at Moorfields, he came round to using it. Yet he thought of it as merely a temporary structure and therefore named it “The Tabernacle.”

Some friends had begun to publish a weekly paper. It carried news of the ministry of himself and of others of a Calvinistic mind on both sides of the Atlantic. He called it The Weekly History.

Whitefield also still faced the question as to whether he should publish in England his reply to Wesley’s sermon “Free Grace,” or as Wesley termed it “Against Predestination.” For nineteen months Wesley had circulated this sermon, and both he and Charles had opposed Whitefield’s beliefs in their daily ministries. Numerous people had accepted their teachings, and Whitefield decided he had no choice but to print his reply.

He began by declaring his strong reluctance to publish anything critical of Wesley.

…Jonah could not go with more reluctance against Nineveh, than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had rather die than do it; and yet if I am faithful to God, and to my own and others' souls, I must not stand neutral any longer. …Numbers have been misled, whom God has been pleased to work upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling aloud upon me to show also my opinion. I must then show that I know no man after the flesh, and that I have no respect to persons, any further than is consistent with my duty to my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. (4)

In his reply Whitefield makes his arguments clearly, and he is unmovable in his doctrinal convictions. But his attitude towards Wesley is characterized by the respect we have seen in his letters, and to him Wesley is ever “My Honoured Friend” and “Honoured Sir.” There is definiteness of statement, but never a harsh word.

One point, however, of Whitefield’s reply must have our attention. In publishing his sermon, Wesley inserted a brief introduction stating that he had been moved to preach the sermon “by the strongest conviction, not only that what is here advanced is ‘the truth as it is in Jesus,’ but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare this truth to all the world.” (5) Numerous readers of the sermon would believe that since he had been “indispensably obliged” in the manner he surely had received some special commission from God, and that therefore the doctrine he declared must indeed be true. The little introduction was as valuable in enforcing Wesley’s teaching as any of his arguments.

Yet the “indispensible obligation” was nothing more than the casting of a lot. That is, he had written out two or three possible courses of actions, each one on a separate slip of paper; he had picked up one, and it had read “Preach and Print,” and this was his authorization for thrusting such a divisive issue into the revival movement.

Accordingly, in his reply Whitefield pointed out that Wesley’s “indispensable obligation” was merely a lot. The issue was a doctrinal matter, not a personal one, and to reveal the role of the casting of a lot was essential to removing the false impression Wesley’s statement had made. Moreover, Whitefield stated that on a previous occasion Wesley had been mistaken by casting a lot and suggested that Wesley ought to have been more careful in using the practice.

Moreover, Wesley had seized as his own the New Room at Bristol and the School House at Kingswood—buildings for which Whitefield and Seward had raised virtually all the money. Whitefield wrote to him about the matter, and Wesley replied in a long harsh letter. (6) He adopted an attitude that he had done nothing to provoke discord and that Whitefield had begun and continued the strife. This totally false attitude Wesley maintained throughout the rest of his life.
During these days, however, Whitefield was gradually winning back his congregations. Thus Wesley realized he was losing much of the fruit of nineteen months of opposition, and the loss provoked him. He made charges that were distorted and untrue, saying that Whitefield refused to offer him the hand of fellowship and that Whitefield asserted he would everywhere preach against him. We can only recognize Wesley’s disappointment as the cause of his statements.

Some of Whitefield’s people were indignant that he had been so forgiving to Wesley and had not claimed a share in the New Room and the Kingswood School. But Whitefield replied,
My heart doth not reproach me for my kindness and friendship to those that differ from me… I cannot renounce those precious truths that I have felt the power of and which were taught me not of man, but of God. At the same time I would love all that love the Lord Jesus, though they differ with me in some points… I have not given way to the Moravian Brethren, or to Mr. Wesley, or to any whom I thought in error, no not for an hour. But I think it best not to dispute when there is no probability of convicting. (7)

Nevertheless, one cannot but feel sorry that Whitefield did not leave an account of his part in the controversy just as fully as Wesley did of his. But Whitefield left us very little and chose to allow Wesley’s statements to remain unchallenged. Accordingly, a false concept of the separation and of the actions of its two chief participants has been passed down to mankind, and has become so fixed in the minds of men that any attempt to correct it will undoubtedly seem to many to be biased against Wesley and severely slanted in Whitefield’s favor.

Ten years later, however, having occasion then to recall the treatment he had experienced at the hands of the two Wesleys, in a letter to Lady Huntington Whitefield stated:

It is good for me that I have been supplanted, despised, censured, maligned, judged and separated from my nearest dearest friends. By this I have found the faithfulness of Him who is the friend of friends… and to be content that He to whom all hearts are open…now sees…the uprightness of my intentions to all mankind. (8)

During these days Whitefield was assisted by a young man, John Cennick. Cennick was a very gracious man, but a powerful preacher, and the anointing of God was upon him. From this time onward he played a very important part in Whitefield’s life.

Whitefield pressed on with his ministry, and by the time he had been in England four and a half months, his work had returned to so healthy a state that he felt able to leave it and respond to the many invitations he had received from Scotland.

____________________________________________________________

1. Whitefield: Life and Times, Volume 2, p.45.
2. Ibid., p.46.
3. Ibid., p.44.
4. An Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley in Answer to His Sermon Entitled “Free Grace”; Whitefield: Life and Times, Volume 2, p. 552.
5. Introduction to Sermon “Free Grace,” found in any issue of Wesley’s Works; Whitefield: Life and Times, Volume 2, p. 56.
6. Ibid., pp. 71-73.
7. Ibid., pp. 76, 77.
8. Whitefield’s Works, Volume 2, p. 466; Whitefield: Life and Times, Volume 2, p. 77.

Greg, I praise and glorify the Lord for the way He used both Whitefield and Wesley in these awakenings. I too long for a revival of the Holy Spirit and the Truth of the Word of God.

And I too believe we need a biblical balance in our doctrine. But who decides what's an "extreme" point of view? After all, I can say my stance is balanced and that your position of being in the middle is "extreme".

My conscience is held captive to the Word of God. I personally hold to one of the positions that you deem to be extreme. And I didn't come to it because of the preaching of men. The Lord taught me these great and glorious doctrines by His Spirit through His Word. When I read the Bible I don't see how you can just stay "in the middle" with regards to salvation and still be theologically consistent; either man chooses God or God chooses man. Either man in heaven will say "I'm here solely because of the grace of God", or "I'm here by the grace of God, plus what I did." Pelagius and Augustine knew that. Ariminus understood that, and so did the Synod of Dort. Many of preachers you promote here understood and understand that as well.

Blessings to you. I will not be responding to any contentious replies from anyone, I'm not interested in a debate. The point of this whole thread is that Wesley was a mere man, as was Whitefield, and we all have our faults. None of us should be exalted above measure.

Good word, Frank.

It helps me to think of this issue in terms of the cherubim. Ezekiel saw these awesome beings functioning in such fearful harmony that at times he spoke of them in the singular instead of the plural. Yet there were four of them.

And as he saw them moving he said, "Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not as they went; they went every one straight forward" (Ezek. 1.9).

Now, that is totally incomprehensible to the human mind. For they had four faces: "the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right side: and they had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle" (vs. 10).

"And they went straight forward..." (vs. 12). Impossible. Totally impossible. How can all four faces be going "straight forward" at the same time? If the one goes forward, the other surely has to be going backward!

At least from the perspective of our own puny minds it seems so. Yet this is a glimpse into a very powerful spiritual reality. And it's given to cause us to fall on our face, not try to figure it out.

And so it is with this Cal/Am thing. Personally, I think Cal and Am... their "wings" are joined together; they are both going "straight forward." It's not a matter of if I embrace the one, I am in opposition to the other. No, there is beautiful truth, needed truth, on both sides. And I, for one, am content to leave it that way... and fall on my face and worship Him who is many-faceted Truth. In Him these seemingly irreconcilable things are reconciled.

Can we not let Him be God, and find our place at His feet in humble worship?

nearthecross said, "The point of this whole thread is that Wesley was a mere man, as was Whitefield, and we all have our faults. None of us should be exalted above measure."

Consider this. The measure of a man is in accord to the degree which he measures up with the rule(measure)of Scripture.

God is Truth,Jesus is Truth,Spirit is Truth.

To suggest that a separation be made between a person's theology and his person, implies that it is permissible to judge his theology, but not his person. Such a separation is foreign to the Scriptures. The reason one is not to call a brother Raca or Fool is that his theology is basically correct: He is a brother and has been regenerated by God. His theology is his person; as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

Not only are we not to make a separation between a person’s theology and his person, we are commanded to judge another person by his theology. John, in 2 John, does not say that the theology of certain people is antichristian (though it is) nor does he say they speak lies (though they do). He calls the people antichrists and liars. He judges their persons by their theologies, and he commands the elect lady and her children to do the same.

"Those who truly love the Lord and manifest His love to others are specifically instructed to separate from false teachers and disobedient brethren. They are also instructed to exercise the Scriptural ministry of reproof and rebuke. Man may call this "negativism," but God calls it obedience! We should not forget that it is because of God's love that we have been commissioned as soldiers, watchmen and shepherds. God is concerned about the welfare of His own. Scriptural rebuke is not opposed to love - it is a manifestation of love. Whenever love is re-defined to preclude the ministry of reproof and rebuke, the devil rejoices, and the enemy is given a protected haven inside the camp. We must not allow this to happen." (M.H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-1997) )

nearthecross says, "When I read the Bible I don't see how you can just stay "in the middle" with regards to salvation and still be theologically consistent; either man chooses God or God chooses man. Either man in heaven will say "I'm here solely because of the grace of God", or "I'm here by the grace of God, plus what I did.""

Amen and Amen nearthecross. Facts and truths are eternal principles. You cannot destroy a fact, neither can you destroy a truth. It may be possible for men, by their human reasoning and sophistry, to cover up and hide from the people the real truth, but this cannot erase it. It still remains the truth. It will stand forever. Again: Facts and truths never contradict. They never cross. A fact cannot contradict a fact. Truth CANNOT contradict a truth. All truth runs parallel. Any position or doctrine that is sustained by a single fact or truth is sustained by every other fact and truth, in the whole realm of fact and truth, that has any bearing on the subject. Any doctrine or position that is refuted or contradicted by a single fact or truth, is refuted and contradicted by every other fact and truth that relates to the subject.

A cry for balance on the part of many is merely a cloak for compromise with and tolerance for error.

"What is called the dogmatic spirit is not popular among men. It is characterized by an authoritative method of presenting truth; by an unwillingness to modify truth to fit it to current conceptions; by an insistence on what seem to many minor points; and above all by (what lies at the root of most of its other peculiarities) a habit of thinking in a system, and a consequent habit of estimating the relative importance of the separate items of truth by their logical relation to the body of truth, rather than by their apparent independent value. Such a habit of mind seems to be the only appropriate attitude toward a body of truth given by revelation, and committed to men only to embrace, cherish, preserve, and propagate. It seems to be, moreover, the attitude toward the body of revealed truth commended to those who were to be its "ministers" and not its masters, by the Lord and his apostles, when they placed it as a rich treasure in the keeping of stewards of the mysteries of God. But it is irritating to men. They would discuss rather than receive truth. And, if they must receive it, they would fain modify it here and there to fit preconceived opinions or permit cherished practices. Especially in a busy age in which Pilate's careless question, "what is truth?" represents the prevailing attitude of men's minds, the dogmatic habit is apt to fare somewhat badly...

Doubtless the preaching of the Judaizers appeared to the Galatians as but a slight modification of that of Paul--a modification which did not affect the essence of the gospel, and which presented many advantages. The Judaizers also preached Christ. They preached Christ as the promised Messiah of Israel, only through the acceptance of whom could entrance be had into the messianic salvation. To them, too, therefore, the promised redemption was unattainable save through the promised Messiah. But though they preached that only in his name could salvation be had, they denied that it could be had in his name alone. Something else was requisite. Men must accept the Messiah; but men must also be circumcised--men must keep the law-men must enter into life by the gate of Judaism. It was this teaching-not the proclamation of an entirely anti-Christian system-which Paul brands as a different kind of gospel or rather no gospel at all, but only a troubling of Zion by those who would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Was Paul narrow-minded and over-severe in this? Evidently there were many Galatians who thought so. Why harshly pronounce those "accursed" who taught fundamentally the same doctrine of the Messiah; and only differed in this, certainly very minor, point of whether the keeping of the law was not necessary too? How can the violence of asserting that if circumcision be received Christ will profit nothing, be possibly excused? Is not this the very embodiment of narrow-minded fanaticism yielding to the odium theologicum? There are apparently many today who would sympathize with the Galatians in so arguing. Paul, however, thought in a system; traced apparently small differences back to their principles; perceived clearly the issues to which they tended; and condemned according to fact and not according to appearance. He is the type of the dogmatic spirit. And we who would be followers of Paul, even as he was of Christ, may learn some very valuable lessons from him.

Primarily, we may learn this lesson: that it is not a matter of small importance whether we preserve the purity of the gospel. The chief dangers to Christianity do not come from the anti-Christian systems. Mohammedanism has never made inroads upon Christendom save by the sword. Nobody fears that Christianity will be swallowed up by Buddhism. It is corrupt forms of Christianity itself which menace from time to time the life of Christianity. Why make much of minor points of difference among those who serve the one Christ? Because a pure gospel is worth preserving; and is not only worth preserving, but is logically (and logic will always work itself ultimately out into history) the only saving gospel. Those who overlay the gospel with man-made additions, no less than those who subtract from it God-given elements, are not preaching "the gospel" in another form, but are offering a different kind of gospel, which is essentially no gospel at all. They are troublers of Israel, who are perverting the gospel of Christ." (B.B.W.)

appolus wrote, "In regard to this always contentious debate, Tozer writes........"

In regard to this always contentious debate, Scripture declares...

John 10:11 I am the Good Shepherd! The Good Shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep.

John 10:15 Even as the Father knows Me, I also know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

John 10:26 But you do not believe for you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

Matt. 26:28 for this is My blood of the new covenant, that is shed for many for the pardon of sins.

Mark 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant that is shed for many."

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of the Lord, and of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

Eph. 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Heb. 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and to them that look for him he will appear the second time without sin to salvation.

Isa. 53:11,12 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide to him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

THE TRUTH that Messiah's blood-atoning death was for His sheep,flock,wife,church is irrefutable.

To attempt to use Scripture to contradict what is evidently revealed by Scripture is no less than devilish cunning craftiness. SEE THOU DO IT NOT!

Remember... Truth CANNOT contradict a truth. All truth runs parallel. Any position or doctrine that is sustained by a single fact or truth is sustained by every other fact and truth, in the whole realm of fact and truth, that has any bearing on the subject. Any doctrine or position that is refuted or contradicted by a single fact or truth, is refuted and contradicted by every other fact and truth that relates to the subject.

hi, i know nothing among you save Jesus and Him crucified...there really is not anything else worth argueing over...dont add or subtract from the cross...everything else is tolerated or your a pharisee in my old but honest opinion.jimp

nearthecross,

"When I read the Bible I don't see how you can just stay "in the middle" with regards to salvation and still be theologically consistent; either man chooses God or God chooses man. Either man in heaven will say "I'm here solely because of the grace of God", or "I'm here by the grace of God, plus what I did.""

God's election/chosing is corporate not individual, two groups those going to hell and those going to heaven. An individual ends up in one or the other depending on whether he is in union to the world, or Jesus. God does not press a button on the back of the neck of an individual to make him love Him, that's not genuine love. God draws, he/she chooses Him. Or rejects him. It's a cooperative effort, God's draws, man makes a decision. If man had no say, then God's people would be nothing more than robots. No genuine love.
That's middle ground. Russ

Savannh says:
You cannot destroy a fact, neither can you destroy a truth. It may be possible for men, by their human reasoning and sophistry, to cover up and hide from the people the real truth, but this cannot erase it. It still remains the truth.

I was taught by Calvinists that John 1: 13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
That that verse proves that when man make a decision to choose God, that decision is fleshly because the will of man is utterly depraved and his will is in bondage.
But when I prayed that God would enlighten His Word to me I began to discover that a huge number of the Bible verses that Calvinist use to prove their doctrines are taken out of context.
The verse is rather speaking against salvation by genealogy. .All the phrases:”not born of blood“, “not born of the will of the flesh“, “not born of the will of man” speak of the Jew who thought that because he was a son of Abraham or could trace his genealogy to one of the twelve tribes and thought that was enough to get him saved.
We even still use the expression: “so and so decided to have a baby“, it is a decision of someone’s flesh or body.
The verse simply compares those who rely on their ancestry for their salvation verses those who come to God by faith in His Son who are the true children of God who are born from above by faith, John 1: 12.

Savannh, I like your zeal, and your defend of what you think is the truth. It is time you apply that to your own human reasoning. .I used to be a Calvinist until God, by His grace opened my eyes when I thought Him in truth, and showed me the human reasoning and cover up within that system of theology.
And yes, Non Calvinists also believe in grace, Savannah.

And yes, about election, Did you know that if the Jews had their own 1689 confession of faith. You know what would fill the pages of such book.
Chapter 1: The ELECTION of the Jews.
Chapter2: The PREDESTINATION of the son of Abraham.
Chapter3: The SOVEREIGHNTY of God in His choosing of the Jew.
Chapter4: The FAITHFULNESS of God in keeping His promise to the Jew.
I will let you guess on your own the titles to the rest of the chapters.
And do you know what God’s answer to all of this would be.
“God is able to raise from these stones children to Abraham.” and you who relied on your election, and My predestination, sovereignty, and faithfulness that it became your idol and your god, and caused you to neglect to rise up early and seek my face, you will be cast in the outer darkness.
I have been to Calvinist churches , and other churches that have been influenced by this system in one way or another, there is only one word to describe them: DEAD.

hi babes,you must not pursue this argument...you give grace as you received it... love and prefer one another...it is childish to argue over things that God only knows and God is in control over...it is like arguing over rather a door is an entrance or an exit...our opinions dont mean anything much anyway but our actions speak volumes...we must not opine to the detrement of our brothers and sisters ...i am sure the baptist who have won millions would appreciate their deadness...repent ye and me.jimp

I am sorry jimp, I couldn't understand your post, I thought that truth is what this thread is about. what did you mean by this:...i am sure the baptist who have won millions would appreciate their deadness...

Umm...Did anyone actually read the posts about John Wesley?

Speaking of Wesley, saw this quote and really liked it.

"But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works." - John Wesley

Nearthecross,
I have read your posts. I appreciate the information especially for its historical value, although it is surely to cause some to cringe (as it already has). However, as we grow in Christ, we must learn to make sense of such controversies.
While I do not wish to pronounce judgment on John Wesley, I have to agree with you that we have a tendency to give undue glory to men, forgetting that it is God who works in us to will and to act according to His good pleasure. This is true regardless of whether or not these historical events are properly reported. On the one hand, I do not wish to demean men that God has used for His glory; on the other hand, I do not wish to rob God of the glory that is due His Name.

This morning, as I read Gideon’s account, I couldn’t help noticing that although Gideon recognized that the Lord should rule over Israel, he still built a golden ephod to his own glory. I kept asking, “Why? What were you thinking?” Perhaps he thought it would be a good reminder of God’s salvation that was brought through him. Perhaps this stems from the same misguided manner of thinking that led the Israelites to cry out, “A sword for the Lord and for Gideon!” Maybe he overlooked the fact that the Lord weaned down his troops to a mere 300 (in contrast to 135,000 enemy troops) so that God would receive all the glory, and not any man. Although it is true that God raised up these Judges to deliver Israel, let us never forget that these Judges did not raise themselves up, neither were they immune to sin.

That being said, I think it is good to thank God for men like John Wesley and George Whitefield. However, we must be careful and remember that our hearts are idol factories. Perhaps our words can be chosen to bring the most glory to God.
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

I must confess, i read only a few lines in that thread, something about John Wesley, sinless perfection and a cover up.... I am not sure.
One of those Cal/Arm heated arguments where people get to pluck each other's beards. I thought, let me jump in before they lock the thread.

I appreciated Pentecostal preachers such as Art Katz, David Wilkerson.... who criticise the evils that are going on in the Pentecostal movement. And that is what draws my attention. I want to see Armenians pointing out the weaknesses of the Armenian belief system,or Armenian theologians,and Calvinists pointing out the weaknesses in the Calvinist belief system...etc
Any thing other than that is not worth looking at because it will be bias. I can tell without a doubt that the person who wrote this book and the one who started this thread are Calvinist. Now, how did I know that, It is just my gut feeling.There is a chance I am wrong, but a greater one I am right.

Renoncer Said: our hearts are idol factories, What a statment!!! not only of people, but also of idealogy .
I appreciate pointing out this truth.
There is a time to erect the Bronze Serpent, but when it becomes an idol, it is time to grind it to powder without mercy.

-----Quote-----
Speaking of Wesley, saw this quote and really liked it.

"But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works." - John Wesley
-----End Quote-----

Wesley's personal views concerning the separation with Whitefield and the Moravians is evidently lacking in this "real" testimony about John Wesley. How curious. Is it possible that we would find Wesley as affectionate towards Whitefield as Whitefield was towards Wesley? (The answer is Yes.)

-----Quote-----
In the sermon, which he termed “Free Grace,” (3) Wesley began by defining predestination. He did not state some recognized definition, but gave it a meaning of his own, and then declared that all who hold the doctrine must hold it in the same extreme sense.
-----End Quote-----

What was that definition exactly?

From the sermon in question, Free Grace by John Wesley,
-----Quote-----
First. It [the grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation] is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it. Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things."

But it is free for ALL, as well as IN ALL. To this some have answered, "No: It is free only for those whom God hath ordained to life; and they are but a little flock. The greater part of God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and, therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this he absolutely decreed; because so was his good pleasure; because it was his sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, -- to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives, he gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation."
-----End Quote-----

Not only is this NOT a definition of Wesley's own making but it is readily recognized in the earliest accounts of our Church Fathers.

As I have done a fair amount of study on the particular teachings of John Wesley (and Jacob Arminius), not the least being his opinions on Predestination, I can say with all evidence that Wesley was no enemy or despiser of Predestination. Thus statements such as the following do not prove Wesley's error but only show the writer's own bias and/or ignorance: "(1) Predestination is a doctrine essential to 'Calvinism,' a theological system he knew Whitefield favored. But Wesley had been taught, particularly by his mother, to believe the opposite system, known as 'Arminianism.'"

Predestination is essential and central to the system of Arminianism; which is here claimed to be supposedly "opposite" to it. Anyone who claims Predestination is opposite to Arminianism is profoundly misinformed. The doctrine of Predestination that Wesley opposed was the Calvinistic concept of that doctrine, and that only. In other words, Wesley merely rejected that Predestination as outlined by Philosophical Determinism. (I will refrain from regurgitating the finer points of this distinction.)

If you are interested in reviewing a detailed description of the Arminian position on Predestination and some of the particular critiques against Philosophical Determinism then I submit the following link:

The Works of James Arminius (vol. 1), read from pages 211-257,
http://books.google.com/books?id=gJ89AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211

And I will only remark to say that I find both Arminius' and Wesley's understanding of the Calvinian doctrine of Predestination to be accurate and precise.

Furthermore, the statement
-----Quote-----
Wesley now began also to declare a still more divisive doctrine, that which he named “Christian Perfection.” (6)

He did not, however, clearly define this teaching. Rather he left it in two forms, and they were contradictory. It could mean merely a high state of Christian maturity, and, of course, on this definition there was no difference of opinion. But it could also mean a state of entire sinlessness, and concerning this the strongest of differences existed. Yet it was this latter meaning that Wesley constantly presented, and this was the doctrine’s only raison d’être.

Whitefield heard various of Wesley’s followers claim that they were perfect, declaring that they had not sinned in so many weeks or months, and to him the assertion was both un-Scriptural and dangerous.
-----End Quote-----

UntoBabes gave the correct response,
-----Quote-----
Whatever people mean by "Sinless Perfection". If that doctrine teaches that it is impossible to sin, it obviously is not biblical, for the Bible teaches no such thing. But, on the other hand, if it teaches it is possible not to sin, then a simple reading in the Scriptures would prove it's truth. I believe that Wesley approved the latter.
-----End Quote-----

On a side note, I ask, what exactly is contradictory between the definitions "a high state of Christian maturity" and "a state of entire sinlessness"? I am uncertain what the writer was attempting to prove as contradictory (regardless of whether or not "a state of entire sinlessness" is possible this side of eternity). It would appear that there are some unspoken assumptions being taken for granted concerning the meaning of these words and phrases.

The writer makes the claim that Wesley taught that "Christian Perfection" was a state of complete sinlessness without possibility of sinning. This is an egregious lie. Neither was Wesley vague in what he meant by Christian Perfection.

A Plain Account of Christian Perfection by John Wesley
http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/plainaccount.stm

A brief quotation from that article:
-----Quote-----
(1.) Perhaps the general prejudice against Christian perfection may chiefly arise from a misapprehension of the nature of it. We willingly allow, and continually declare, there is no such perfection in this life, as implies either a dispensation from doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God, or a freedom from ignorance, mistake, temptation, and a thousand infirmities necessarily connected with flesh and blood.

(2.) First. We not only allow, but earnestly contend, that there is no perfection in this life, which implies any dispensation from attending all the ordinances of God, or from doing good unto all men while we have time, though `especially unto the household of faith.' We believe, that not only the babes in Christ, who have newly found redemption in his blood, but those also who are `grown up into perfect men,' are indispensably obliged, as often as they have opportunity, `to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him,' and to `search the Scriptures;' by fasting, as well as temperance, to `keep their bodies under, and bring them into subjection;' and, above all, to pour out their souls in prayer, both secretly, and in the great congregation.

(3.) We Secondly believe, that there is no such perfection in this life, as implies an entire deliverance, either from ignorance, or mistake, in things not essential to salvation, or from manifold temptations, or from numberless infirmities, wherewith the corruptible body more or less presses down the soul. We cannot find any ground in Scripture to suppose, that any inhabitant of a house of clay is wholly exempt either from bodily infirmities, or from ignorance of many things; or to imagine any is incapable of mistake, or falling into divers temptations.
-----End Quote-----

To summarize the whole: the grace of God in Christ is sufficient to keep us from every sin.

1 Corinthians 10:13.
"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it."

A study of the Greek confirms the clear expression that the potential to live the duration of our new life in Christ without falling into sin is incontestable truth. And this is exactly the teaching Wesley propagated. The fact that some people, such as many in the Holiness Movement, were birthed from an abuse and/or misunderstanding of these teachings is not a proper testimony against these doctrines as taught by Wesley.

Whatever people mean by "Sinless Perfection". If that doctrine teaches that it is impossible to sin, it obviously is not biblical, for the Bible teaches no such thing. But, on the other hand, if it teaches it is possible not to sin, then a simple reading in the Scriptures would prove it's truth. I believe that Wesley approved the latter.

No, actually, Wesley left his teaching really vague and open to the posibility of sinless perfection. Wesley contradicts himself in his teachings. (I've read Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, by the way. To be fair and honest there were some great and really edifying parts in that book; however, the whole premise of a "second blessing" holiness experience of "entire sanctification" is entirely unbiblical, and very dangerous). As it was stated in the excerpt of this Whitefield book, if by "Christian Perfection" Wesley meant only a higher state of Christian living, there would be no contention, Whitefielied would not have had a problem with that. But he evidently meant something MORE than that, as did his followers. Hence the contention that arose.

You say "Wesley contradicts himself in his teachings" regarding "sinless perfection" (a phrase Wesley admits "is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself"). Please provide some example(s).

Please explain then what Wesley "evidently meant" by "entire sanctification". I personally care little for what followers may say; regardless of whomsoever they may claim to follow (the whoredom of Christ's name is proof enough for my skepticism).

To quote again from A Plain Account of Christian Perfection by John Wesley; I strongly advice you to take particular note to Q. 11:

Q. 10. May not, then, the very best of men adopt the dying Martyr's confession: `I am in myself nothing but sin, darkness, hell; but thou art my light, my holiness, my heaven?'

A. Not exactly. But the best of men may say, `Thou art my light, my holiness, my heaven. Through my union with thee, I am full of light, of holiness, and happiness. But if I were left to myself, I should be nothing but sin, darkness, hell.'

But to proceed: The best of men need Christ as their Priest, their Atonement, their Advocate with the Father; not only as the continuance of their every blessing depends on his death and intercession, but on account of their coming short of the law of love. For every man living does so. You who feel all love, compare yourselves with the preceding description. Weigh yourselves in this balance, and see if you are not wanting in many particulars.

Q. 11. But if all this be consistent with Christian perfection, that perfection is not freedom from all sin; seeing sin is the `transgression of the law:' And the perfect transgress the very law they are under. Besides, they need the atonement of Christ; and he is the atonement of nothing but sin. Is, then, the term sinless perfection, proper?

A. It is not worth disputing about. But observe in what sense the persons in question need the atonement of Christ. They do not need him to reconcile them to God afresh; for they are reconciled. They do not need him to restore the favour of God, but to continue it. He does not procure pardon for them anew, but `ever liveth to make intercession for them;' and `by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.' (Heb. 10:14.)

For want of duly considering this, some deny that they need the atonement of Christ. Indeed, exceeding few; I do not remember to have found five of them in England. Of the two, I would sooner give up perfection; but we need not give up either one or the other. The perfection I hold, `Love rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks,' is well consistent with it; if any hold a perfection which is not, they must look to it.

Q. 12. Does then Christian perfection imply any more than sincerity?

A. Not if you mean by that word, love filling the heart, expelling pride, anger, desire, self-will; rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks. But I doubt, few use sincerity in this sense. Therefore, I think the old word is best.

Moreover, I am loathe to cast doubt upon the testimony of Whitefield in regards to the habit of his accusations and contentions, nevertheless, consider the following account if you will:

The History of Harvard University (vol. 2): The Whitefieldian Controversy

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&pg=PA39&id=doPrcZV9a0EC#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would totally disagree (as would John Wesley) to say that Whitefield preached an altogether different gospel. True, the two brothers differed on several non-salvific theological points, but both certainly preached the same Jesus, and had been reconciled by the end of Whitefield's life in 1770.

Would that we could go and do likewise.

But neither Wesley nor Whitefield preached a gospel that gave liberty to sin. Both preached repentance unto salvation. In fact, if you read Whitefield's sermons, you'll find no greater and desperate exhortation to flee and forsake sin than you will in all of Christianity. So, respectfully, I must say that I don't understand your point. Wesley and Whitefield differed not on sin, but primarily on matters of election and reprobation.

I hope you agree (as they did) that these are non-salvific points, and are certainly not the gospel message.

That's fine. Might you show us in Whitefield's own words where he denies Christ saving us entirely from sin?

That letter is not about Whitefield's conviction that Jesus is unable to save us from our sin; it is about the humility and candor of a man who could admit his own shortcomings and shameful failures without doubting a saving interest in the blood of Christ. Whitefield humbly admits to have fallen into sin since his conversion, and if you are brutally honest with the contents of your heart, you also will admit to the same.

Whitefield speaks of his inability to "live" defect-free in the flesh while still being hampered in by his adamic nature. This is a war we all face after coming to Christ; the daily mortification of sin and the taking up of our cross. Sometimes we fail -- as Whitefield himself shamefully admits. I too have fallen and sinned since my conversion; and if not in the flesh, then certainly in the heart. Whether it be anger, spiritual pride, an unclean thought, a selfish motive, a thrist for more money and the approval of man, et cetera. The more light God gives a man or woman, the more his faults and weaknesses are illuminated.

For a tremendously advanced brother like George Whitefield, the light God gave him on his sins must have been staggering. And the blood of Jesus was able to cleanse him from each of them upon confession 1 John 1:9.

I was with you up until the last paragraph :)

I think we have a misunderstanding here between the dynamic of "Sin" and the event of "sins"; "Sin" being the root of which the born-again believer is dead to (Romans 6:6) in Christ, and the ongoing "sins" of the flesh which require mortification and which are subsequently cleansed in the blood of Jesus Christ when confessed by the believer (1 John 1:7, 9).

Those who have been crucified in Christ are already free from the power of Sin; it is not by their willpower or something they can lay claim to by gritting their teeth and praying for a supplemental "enduement". On the contrary, it is soley of God, who slayed us in Christ before the foundation of the world. This is why, before your conversion, you had enjoyment engaging in sinful activities that you are not permitted by the Holy Spirit to do now.

A person who has died to sin is grieved in his spirit when he succumbs to the lusts of the flesh, and, for example, loses his temper. This isn't something they have to work up and feel bad about: it is immediate and intrinsic to their spirit because they have been killed to the power of sin in Christ and made alive to God. They will repent soon enough, because no one born of God can continue in sin. The pain, the brokenness, the torture, the grief of offending God is too great. And when they do confess their sin and repent, the blood of Christ immediately cleanses both their sin and the guilty conscience.

If you are claiming that something further must be acquired to be "saved", the burden is on you to provide a convincing scriptural refutation, and not noble hearsay from one of Wesley's or Brengle's journals. Years ago, I would have offered you this challenge. I am only involved here now because of the misinformation you were speading.

People need to see both sides of the coin.

If I remember correctly from a previous SI topic, Krautfrau you believe in 'sinless perfection', which nither Whitfield nor Wesley preached. That is to say you believe that a christian can receive a work of God (made perfect) to enable them to NEVER sin again. I beleive is a huge error and not in keeping with scripture.

This is why you make the points you do. I'm sure I'm right in saying this is your posyion, if not then please correct me and I will appologise.

By your own admission then, and in contradiction to scripture, no man has been freed from the power of sin save for Jesus Christ alone, for He is the only One who can measure up to your standard.

No saint has ever arrived at a state where "by choice" they have ceased from all known sin and entered into a lifestyle of experiential sinlessness through God + human willpower. If they think they have, they are only fooling themselves and their followers, for by what standard are they measuring their success? Only by the limited light they have of themselves. But if they would instead measure themselves by the light of Christ, they would immediately see their abysmal lack and futility. This humbling experience would then be the antechamber for God to teach them the revelatory "Not I but Christ", and henceforth begin to grow them in grace.

Many Christians, however, endeavor to achieve freedom from sin through fasting and prayer and memorizing scripture and trying to emulate the lifestyles of holiness heros like John Wesley, but they never seem to quite make it. They fall ater a period of "victory", and then just chalk it up to not exercising enough willpower, and make a mental note to try harder next time. What a burden!

But praise God that what man couldn't do through his own strength and resolve, God has already accomplished for us in Christ, who has been made for us righteousness and sanctification as we walk in the Spirit. God has already killed us in Christ, we are already dead, it is now ours to reckon as such and to yield to by faith. It is Christ's own perfect life manifest in us that thus overcomes and wins what the flesh could never achieve.

Krautfrau wrote: "Yes thankyou, please apologise. There is no point where we can never sin again. We always retain the ability to sin if we stop trusting in the Lord to keep us from sin. It is a moment by moment walk in faith."

I am happy to apologise to you that I said 'you claim sinless pefection is possible for man', on the basis of your statement above that 'there is no point where we can never sin again'. You agree by this statement that it is not possible to ever reach that place of never sinning (sinless pefection).

However you contradict this statement by this post (and others):"If a man is freed from the power of sin then he will not sin. He does not succumb to the lusts of the flesh. He wishes not to sin and Christ provides the power to not give in to temptation, so if he sins then he has chosen to sin which is outright anarchy."

I think you have a wrong notion of what sin is. The outward obvious sins (such as sexual immorality, murder, idolatry, drunkeness, etc,etc) we easily identify and say we no longer practice, but the (so called) small things we easily miss and do not consider them sin. You know, the closer we get to God the more we will see our sinfulness in the light of His holiness. Things we never even considered or detected we now become aware of as wrong and therefore sinful.

Sin is 'missing the mark', i.e. not fully doing what God says in any small way, attitude or thought. Scripture tells us 'Whatever is not of faith is sin'. Therefore any time you do something and are not trusting God, you sin.

I could go on, but only the Spirit of God can convict us of sin and how sinful sin really is. You belittle sin by thinking you don't commit it. I think Jesus condemned it as 'Self righteousness' where ever he came across it!

I am not saying at this time that I am without sin.

And here in lies the problem! All honest people (including those who teach sinless perfection) will admit this. But they have embraced a position (which is false) that thinks that they can attain a place of being completely without sinning. This will only lead to frustration, disapointment and condemnation. Even though these folk are sincere in wanting to be free of sin, it is a just a subtle form of legalism.

Paul West summed up in his post what it really means to be set free from sin. We recognise that we died and Christ is now our life. It is His life in us that is perfect and righteous.

I'm not suggesting we just accept sin and live in sin, we should resist sin and every time it raises up we confess it and turn from it (repent). But there will always be an 'if we sin' situation. And 'if we sin' we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1). Quoting from today's Spurgeon reading: 'John does not say that "If any man sin he has forfeited his advocate", but "we have an advocate," sinners though we are.'

Just think on that. Why do we need an advocate (legal defence) if we can be perfectly righteous and represent ourselves?

Krautfrau wrote: "Even though I do not have the testimony at present that I am without sin, though I am not in a state of backsliding nor in conscious disobedience, I have actually been in the state of sinless perfection as have many others before me, and I have to say that I cannot find anyone today who is walking in this position though I know others who deeply desire it but cannot attain it for some reason."

There are those who come into sanctification experiences and then later find that they "lose the blessing," for lack of better terms. this is how others in past centuries have spoken in any case. I think there is room here for the path that comes in this new way we experience. I believe the New Testament teaching of Paul in Romans 6-8 and John in I Jn. 2-4, etc. do teach that we can have victorious living and that "sin shall not have dominion over you - for you are not under law but under grace...." This wonderful grace from our Lord is just that, as you have indicated when speaking of the fact that it is by faith. I am rambling a bit, but I want to say that when a Christian enters a sanctifying experience, he may desire to give testimony, much like the one who is first born again and wants to give testimony; in both cases, teh person is typically seen as radical and so forth. Watchman Nee, in his book, The Normal Christian Life," explains that when Romans 6 was revealed to him, he was so excited he ran around telling people he was dead....they certainly did not understand and thought him strange, etc. Actually, this has happened to many a saint. Our theology, whether Wesleyan or whatever, often makes our experience confusing, for we look for doctrine from these men (spiritual giants they were no doubt) but we may get into error as well. Sinless perfection? It seems we all agree it is not attainable in life. Victory over sin? The New Testament clearly preaches this wonderful truth to us. When we were saved we were sanctified; when we were baptized we were crucified, and so on (identification truths are not just positional only). We have not only been delivered from the penalty of sin but also from the power of sin....and as been noted, we must reckon it to be so. We can know that doctrine and hear, Know, reckon, walk and so on; however, the experience of seeing our wretched, horrid sin nature, falling into dismal sorrow and repentance and seeing our hopeless nature (even after being saved) - and then coming to see our resurrection in Christ and that the old self truly was crucified with Christ....well that calls for the same joyful experience tht Watchman Nee had (not all must have the crisis to enter in though). Tozer understood this, as did Ravenhill. KF - I also have not met many or maybe any, who have walked in victory over sin for a length of time; although, I must say that I have, as you have, experienced periods in which sin had no dominion or rule in my life. I know this is confusing, maybe unintelligible in some respects to many; however, if we are to have revival, the cross must once again be preached - and not just salvation for the sinner, but deliverance for the saints....repentance of course must be there; the Spirit of God can bring this. This is what I have experienced personally, revival by way of Christ Crucified. Does it make us sinless? Never. It makes us humbly aware and broken to see what we are outside of Christ (good place for both Calv/Armin). From a dirty, dingy prison cell, Paul wrote, "Rejoice in the Lord always." And if we did not hear it the first time, he wrote once again, "And again I say rejoice." There are many admonitions and promises in the New Covenant, through the blood of the cross. Walking in the Spirit means holy living (not legalism) and it means daily joy, peace, patience and kindness, as well death to self and sin...a narrow path indeed. the crucified, victorious saint will always be misunderstood and considered "odd" by most. This will not be so, if and when true revival breaks out; in that case we ought to call it "normal." It is a lonely walk to go the narrow path, for when the sanctifying experience comes with great joy, we next find that it also means daily dying, attacks, misunderstandings, friends turning upon us, perhaps even accusing us of heresy, humbling ourselves and loving our brethren in Christ, no matter what their theology, not matter how they treat us; this what it means to go that way. It also means a deep security and peace, knowing that our Heavenly Father knows all that we need; we no longer have to run like the pagans for our needs. We know His love and grace and mercy. Victory over sin, means victory over wilful, conscious sin (the tip of the iceberg only). From there it is like peeling an onion, and the Spirit of God continues this process. However, as stated we can experience daily victory and if none preach it, I am afraid it will be rare - unless it spreads, to which we might call the appearance and reality of such, "revival," should God will.

Zac Poonen states, “If it takes time to get victory, it is because it takes time for God to humble us. It takes time for God to shatter that self-confidence that we as children of Adam are filled with."

Not long ago, when I was in a bad mood, my Frau said to me, "Come on...give me a break....we're all human."

Good post mkal.

You are right about a saint enjoying a period of "sinless" victory before once again crashing and burning. This is the painful cycle, the unfortunate spiritual hamster wheel for all who try to achieve perfection by sweat and tears. The longer the victory, the harder the fall. It's excruciating. But God uses these falls and failures to teach us a priceless lesson: there is nothing good in the flesh, and the flesh can never in a million years be improved. The giants of our adamic lust and anger and impatience and selfishness are far too strong for us to conquer, and we all stand like grasshoppers before them.

If we think we've conquered a giant, we find that it was only a temporal vapor and a thousand stronger ones are marching right behind it. There is no way for us to win. No amount of praying for strength or fasting will win the war for us; we will only win small battles from time to time. But we shouldn't be content with temporal battle victories -- not when the entire war has already been won by Jesus Christ.

My dear brethren, Jesus Christ has overcome the world. Greater is our General and the Captain of Our Salvation in us than all the giants in the land. Their chief master was vanquished 2000 years ago on the cross, fatally crushed and made a spectacle of. All the hosts of hell are already defeated, judged, sentenced to death and are awaiting execution on death row. When God crushed Satan on the cross through the death of Christ, we were in His Son and died with Him. When Christ was raised from the dead, we were also raised with Him and are now seated in heavenly places of eternal victory along with Him.

If you are born of God, you have already been made free from sin. You have died to sin, and have been inducted into the Body of Christ, a Conquering Army that has already won the war and is enjoying the spoils provided by Our Head. Even though you feel personally defeated and crestfallen because of past failures in the flesh, it does not change the fact that you dead and your life is hid with Christ in God. But do you believe this?

If you can grasp this by faith, and see that the life of Christ is your life, the faith of Christ is your faith, the power of Christ is your power, the righteousness of Christ is your righteousness, the patience of Christ is your patience, the humility of Christ is your humility, the love of Christ is your love of others -- and that you are 100% complete in Him, that in one single package deal God has given us all things, because all things are in the Son, and we have been put into Him by God -- we would then know the truth and the truth would set us free. If God would only open our eyes to this truth, and we reckon it as a child and walk by faith and not by sight or feelings, dear brothers, victory would be an immediate reality, because our victory is in Christ, and Christ is our reality.

But such is a costly truth. Satan does not want you aware of his defeat, and your all-sufficiency in Christ. He will trick you into breaking rank and coming down to meet him, like Sanballet calling out to Nehemiah on the wall. His goal is to get us to "grow strong" and step out of Christ and do something ourselves. It's all a sham. For the rest of our lives we will learn this principal by trial and error. Every failure we experience should elucidate this truth more and more: "Abide in Me, and I in you. Outside of Me you can do nothing."

Brother Paul