John Wesley's theology

[puritan lad]

1-Choice / choose: We choose what we want to choose, and that choice being guided by our own lust and desires. The Salvation of any person is God's choice.

2-Free Will: The freedom to choose, We are always free to choose what we want. We are not, however, free to change our own natures, and our wills are slave to our natures. As a result, one must be born of the Spirit before he can choose God. And one born of the spirit will choose the kingdom of God. The rest are slaves to sin, and can do nothing to become "born again".

3-Call - The "general call" is for all to repent. Christ commanded all, including the Pharisees, to repent. The "effectual call", however, is for those whom "he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:30)

4-Depravity - Man is dead in sin. Every part of his being, including his will, has been effected by the fall. In his natural state, he cannot accept the things of the kingdom of God, because they are folly to him. He must be given life. Salvation is a supernatural occurrence, and must be performed totally by a supernatural God.

[puritan lad]

yes and perhaps you would not like to proof text and cherry pick here. Israel is a unique example of what you are saying and the only one for whom you can actually show biblical support for, in terms of saving garce, and this is to be understood in context of Romans 11.

Even if that were true (and it's not), how does that help your position? Shall we ignore the passage because it is "cherry-picked"?

They are not his sheep because of their unbelief...

Actually, it says that have unbelief because they are not his sheep. You have the cause and effect backwards.

But this is specifically for Israel and they will be saved.

Where do you get the idea that this is specifically for Israel? Will Judas be saved? The Pharisees (that Jesus was referencing here) See Matthew 23:33.

[puritan lad]

I am not undermining election, neither did Wesley;

Yes, you are...

only when the supposition is introduced that only the elect are saved and enabled, is when I have an objection.

That is election. If they were elected for salvation, then what were they elected for?

[puritan lad]

How does one choose to BELIEVE?
By responding to a message of hope, which is Christ. And anyone can do it.

Why does the Bible say that no one can do it?

Ever fell of a tree or fell in a river without knowing how to swim. In that moment you know and would love a helping hand to come and rescue you. That is hope. No rocket science is needed to evaluate that hand in that moment. The same happens to a man who is enabled by God.

Does God merely enable the man, or does he save him?

Yet he does not choose to accept this offer, and yes there are rebellious people out there who wouldn't, then it is their choice.

So the saints are saved because the are less rebellious than the reprobate? (That's what I mean by "natural virtue".)

John 3:16 mentions "whosoever" believes...that is enough to get the meaning. You will have to show why it says "the world"; if saving the elect is on the agenda it should have been "For God so loved the elect...". I have already said that through Christ, God has enabled all to come to him.

Where does John 3:16 say anything about being "enabled"?

[jlay]

Where is the contradiction? Are the Scriptures contradictory? God calls all men everywhere to repent. That is what Scripture teaches. Yet without Him, we can do nothing, including repent.

PL, maybe you should elaborate on what you are saying here in terms of reformed theology. Just so others who aren't as familiar will better understand.
I can also say, 'without Him we can do nothing,' just as you, but the entireity is not in agreement.

God does call all men. Can you show scripturally where this calling is 'general?' And thus not irresistable? Of course if His calling is 'irresistable' then all men WILL repent.

No-one, including Calvinists, deny that one has to believe in order to be saved.

I would beg to differ. Because the word believe is being equivocated to suit the argument. Without question the position that PL presents is that belief is a result of salvation. The believer is programed for belief. It is the unavoidable response to regeneration which has already occurred. In this case, everything follows. God regenerates the person. Then they believe, which is a determined response. I would say that for many here, that definition of belief is far different.

[puritan lad]

Acts 17:30 is the example of a general call. Obviously, the general call is not irresistible, as you pointed out, or else all men would repent.

Romans 8:30 is the effectual call. This call produces both justification and glorification and is thus irresistible. Otherwise, Romans 8:30 would be false. (God doesn't always justify and glorify those whom he generally calls).

[Canuckster1127]

Where is the contradiction? Are the Scriptures contradictory? God calls all men everywhere to repent. That is what Scripture teaches. Yet without Him, we can do nothing, including repent.

PL, maybe you should elaborate on what you are saying here in terms of reformed theology. Just so others who aren't as familiar will better understand.
I can also say, 'without Him we can do nothing,' just as you, but the entireity is not in agreement.

God does call all men. Can you show scripturally where this calling is 'general?' And thus not irresistable? Of course if His calling is 'irresistable' then all men WILL repent.

No-one, including Calvinists, deny that one has to believe in order to be saved.

I would beg to differ. Because the word believe is being equivocated to suit the argument. Without question the position that PL presents is that belief is a result of salvation. The believer is programed for belief. It is the unavoidable response to regeneration which has already occurred. In this case, everything follows. God regenerates the person. Then they believe, which is a determined response. I would say that for many here, that definition of belief is far different.

Just as a point of information and confirm what Jlay is saying, most 5 point double predestination Calvinists that I've intereacted (actually all of them or they wouldn't be 5 point double presdestination Calvinists) do in fact assert that regeneration takes place before faith/belief on the premise that men are not universally able to make that choice due to their fallen nature.

[puritan lad]

Just as a point of information and confirm what Jlay is saying, most 5 point double predestination Calvinists that I've intereacted (actually all of them or they wouldn't be 5 point double presdestination Calvinists) do in fact assert that regeneration takes place before faith/belief on the premise that men are not universally able to make that choice due to their fallen nature.

Close. They do make choices, but only those that appeal to their fallen nature. One of the two hearts of the debate is whether regeneration takes place before faith or visa versa. The other is whether or not Christ's work provides actual salvation or possible salvation. Anyway you slice it, universal atonement requires the latter.

[DannyM]

Brother Danny, always a delight to speak with you.

You too, brother

If Christ was an actual propitiation for the sins of all men everywhere, then God's anger towards every sinner is totally appeased, and everyone is saved.

These are two steps, not one. Christ lifts the sins of the whole world, but that doesn't save them. That only settles the score from Sin, they have to accept this too and believe in God as well. In order for any person to experience the benefits of salvation that Christ purchased for him on the cross, he must repent and believe. Christ’s atonement becomes effectual for people only when they meet His conditions.

Neo, there are no conditions to be met.

Ephesians 1:3-14
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight

9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ

10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Could the scriptures be any clearer, brother? Before the foundation of the world, God chose us to be holy and blameless. In Christ we are redeemed through His blood, forgiven our sins - it is done!

Which brings us back to Christ being the propitiation for our sins:

hilasmos

properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. (hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath, on all confessed sin. By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate /hilasmós ("propitiation").

Strong’s:

propitiation, sin offering
Atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator -- propitiation

1 John 4:7-12
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

God loved us first, and He loves us so much that He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. It is effectual, my brother - it is done!

When I preach to non-Christians, I tell them that Christ died for them. You only have to come and receive this gift of salvation. If Christ did not die for them, what's the point of evangelism at all, brother.

You are preaching the gospel, brother, and that is only good.

[Canuckster1127]

Just as a point of information and confirm what Jlay is saying, most 5 point double predestination Calvinists that I've intereacted (actually all of them or they wouldn't be 5 point double presdestination Calvinists) do in fact assert that regeneration takes place before faith/belief on the premise that men are not universally able to make that choice due to their fallen nature.

Close. They do make choices, but only those that appeal to their fallen nature. One of the two hearts of the debate is whether regeneration takes place before faith or visa versa. The other is whether or not Christ's work provides actual salvation or possible salvation. Anyway you slice it, universal atonement requires the latter.

I don't believe your position can make that distinction and be consistent Danny. We're talking here about the decision to repent and accept Christ. Unless I'm misunderstanding, PL is a 5 point double predestinationalist meaning that only God does in fact, make the choice as to whether men are regenerated and God also makes the choice in terms of Reprobates predestined for Hell. Reformed Theology is a bigger tent than Calvinism by itself. I've seen PL in another place make the assertion that not all who claim to be Calvinists, in the sense of the 5 point Tulip, and double predestination (in other words, narrowly defined) really are (by his definition any way) not Calvinists. Then we get into issues such as monergism which tie to this and as you allude to, superlapsarianism.

I'm just jumping in here for the purposes of clarification. Very little can be effectively communicated if those discussing aren't using terms the same or at least understand how others are using the term if it differs from their own.

[puritan lad]

Canuckster is correct. The term "Reformed" has lost much of it's meaning over the years and has been reduced to the "5-points". But there is a lot more to being Reformed than being a Calvinist. We have Reformed Baptists and Reformed Charismatics who really aren't "Reformed" at all, though they may hold to some tenants of Reformed Theology.

I do have a question about the term "double-predestination". Is it logically possible to hold to "single predestination"? Can one hold that God predestines the elect to be saved, and then reject the idea that He also predestines "the wicked for the day of destruction"?

[DannyM]

Just as a point of information and confirm what Jlay is saying, most 5 point double predestination Calvinists that I've intereacted (actually all of them or they wouldn't be 5 point double presdestination Calvinists) do in fact assert that regeneration takes place before faith/belief on the premise that men are not universally able to make that choice due to their fallen nature.

Close. They do make choices, but only those that appeal to their fallen nature. One of the two hearts of the debate is whether regeneration takes place before faith or visa versa. The other is whether or not Christ's work provides actual salvation or possible salvation. Anyway you slice it, universal atonement requires the latter.

I don't believe your position can make that distinction and be consistent Danny. We're talking here about the decision to repent and accept Christ. Unless I'm misunderstanding, PL is a 5 point double predestinationalist meaning that only God does in fact, make the choice as to whether men are regenerated and God also makes the choice in terms of Reprobates predestined for Hell. Reformed Theology is a bigger tent than Calvinism by itself. I've seen PL in another place make the assertion that not all who claim to be Calvinists, in the sense of the 5 point Tulip, and double predestination (in other words, narrowly defined) really are (by his definition any way) not Calvinists. Then we get into issues such as monergism which tie to this and as you allude to, superlapsarianism.

I'm just jumping in here for the purposes of clarification. Very little can be effectively communicated if those discussing aren't using terms the same or at least understand how others are using the term if it differs from their own.

Bart, is this meant for PL or me?

[RickD]

I do have a question about the term "double-predestination". Is it logically possible to hold to "single predestination"? Can one hold that God predestines the elect to be saved, and then reject the idea that He also predestines "the wicked for the day of destruction"?

That's a great question, PL. It's one I've had myself. I struggle to understand how one can believe in only predestination of the elect. Single predestination seems inconsistent to me. It seems if God would predestine some to eternal life, the others, would have to be predestined to eternal damnation. In other words, PL, at least your error is based on logic.

[Canuckster1127]

Just as a point of information and confirm what Jlay is saying, most 5 point double predestination Calvinists that I've intereacted (actually all of them or they wouldn't be 5 point double presdestination Calvinists) do in fact assert that regeneration takes place before faith/belief on the premise that men are not universally able to make that choice due to their fallen nature.

Close. They do make choices, but only those that appeal to their fallen nature. One of the two hearts of the debate is whether regeneration takes place before faith or visa versa. The other is whether or not Christ's work provides actual salvation or possible salvation. Anyway you slice it, universal atonement requires the latter.

I don't believe your position can make that distinction and be consistent Danny. We're talking here about the decision to repent and accept Christ. Unless I'm misunderstanding, PL is a 5 point double predestinationalist meaning that only God does in fact, make the choice as to whether men are regenerated and God also makes the choice in terms of Reprobates predestined for Hell. Reformed Theology is a bigger tent than Calvinism by itself. I've seen PL in another place make the assertion that not all who claim to be Calvinists, in the sense of the 5 point Tulip, and double predestination (in other words, narrowly defined) really are (by his definition any way) not Calvinists. Then we get into issues such as monergism which tie to this and as you allude to, superlapsarianism.

I'm just jumping in here for the purposes of clarification. Very little can be effectively communicated if those discussing aren't using terms the same or at least understand how others are using the term if it differs from their own.

Addressed to you. PL is welcome to jump in (as he has). Just a point of information so that the conversation isn't sidetracked because of not understanding where people are coming from and what they mean by words.

Bart, is this meant for PL or me?

[DannyM]

Just as a point of information and confirm what Jlay is saying, most 5 point double predestination Calvinists that I've intereacted (actually all of them or they wouldn't be 5 point double presdestination Calvinists) do in fact assert that regeneration takes place before faith/belief on the premise that men are not universally able to make that choice due to their fallen nature.

Close. They do make choices, but only those that appeal to their fallen nature. One of the two hearts of the debate is whether regeneration takes place before faith or visa versa. The other is whether or not Christ's work provides actual salvation or possible salvation. Anyway you slice it, universal atonement requires the latter.

I don't believe your position can make that distinction and be consistent Danny. We're talking here about the decision to repent and accept Christ. Unless I'm misunderstanding, PL is a 5 point double predestinationalist meaning that only God does in fact, make the choice as to whether men are regenerated and God also makes the choice in terms of Reprobates predestined for Hell. Reformed Theology is a bigger tent than Calvinism by itself. I've seen PL in another place make the assertion that not all who claim to be Calvinists, in the sense of the 5 point Tulip, and double predestination (in other words, narrowly defined) really are (by his definition any way) not Calvinists. Then we get into issues such as monergism which tie to this and as you allude to, superlapsarianism.

I'm just jumping in here for the purposes of clarification. Very little can be effectively communicated if those discussing aren't using terms the same or at least understand how others are using the term if it differs from their own.

Addressed to you. PL is welcome to jump in (as he has). Just a point of information so that the conversation isn't sidetracked because of not understanding where people are coming from and what they mean by words.

Bart, is this meant for PL or me?

Okay...but what distinction?