Whitefield/Wesley & Predestination

tooshie Wesleys oration, entitled openhanded Grace was produce in August, 1739. In it he attempted to show how divinity fudges coldcock is un waiveze in either and free for each(prenominal). His message was strongly directed toward the article of faith of predetermination and chosenion, which was held to by numerous supposers in Wesleys day. He call backd that this doctrine was a dangerous cardinal and that it blasphemed the very psyche and nature of matinee idol. In response to Wesley, George Whitefield wrote A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. John Wesley. Whitefield saw Wesleys doctrine of free aggrandise as universe the one that was blasphemous and dangerous to the faith.He argued that the news clearly presents the doctrine of predetermination, and that each doctrine that stated otherwise led to the heresy of universalism. The two men had worked unitedly in the ministry for quite just about time when these two documents were published. Wesley ad opted many an(prenominal) evangelical views of Christianity when he was converted, that he retained some(prenominal) of his pre-conversion beliefs concerning predestination. When Whitefield leave England on a trip, Wesley quickly published his sermon on free dump. When Whitefield returned, he was determined to respond and set the record straight. Both of these men presented strong arguments supporting both of their views. It is difficult to comp are the two equall(a)y, because Whitefield lonesome(prenominal) addresses certain issues in Wesleys sermon and non its entirety. That macrocosm said, I believe that George Whitefields arguments concerning predestination and soteriology are superior to John Wesleys due to how he handles Scripture and logical thought. Wesleys sermon on free grace had six major delegates.For the purpose of this paper, I fork out selected for discussion just now the points that Whitefield directly addressed in his earn of response. In doing so, I h ope to put on apparent that Whitefield had a more(prenominal) than stronger argument and a much more biblical understanding of predestination in soteriology. Wesley begins his sermon with a fair and accurate assessment of the achievable views a somebody might encumber, concerning predestination. He clearly shows that while many people may say that they only hold to certain move of the doctrine, they in conclusion believe in the whole.He defines the doctrine as, As virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, unresisting decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly goddamn it existence impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved. This is a very good and biblical exposition of predestination, only when the implications Wesley draws from it are non. The first error that Wesley concludes is that predestination eliminates the need for evangelism. He says, Preaching is needless to them that are ele cted for they, whether with sermon or without, go away infallibly be saved. In other give-and-takes, if God go out unconditionally elect some people, consequently it is unnecessary for those people to be evangelized. The same goes for the non-elect. If they are to be unconditionally damned to underworld, then evangelism provide permit no fingering in saving them. In Predestination Calmly Considered, he says His ministers indeed, as they know non the event of things, may be sincere in offering redemption to all persons, according to their general commission, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to both creature. nevertheless how can God or Christ be sincere in sending them with this commission, to offer his grace to all men, if God has not provided such(prenominal) grace for all men, no, not so much as conditionally? I believe that Whitefield has a much clearer understanding of Scripture when he responds to Wesleys statement concerning evangelism. He asks, Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed in like manner the preaching of the intelligence information as a means to bring them to it? Whitefield mum that evangelism is the means that God uses to bring His elect to salvation.Whitefield goes on verbalise, Since we do not know who are elect and who are reprobate, we are to preach licentiously to all. For the sound out may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much crime and sin. Whitefield could see how beneficial the Word is for both the elect and reprobate. Scripture supports Whitefield on this matter, especially in Romans 10. Paul explains that faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ, and earlier he asks, How are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? The leger clearly states that the only style that the elect will come to faith in Christ is through evangelism. John Calvin also viewed evangel ism and predestination in the same light as Whitefield. He concluded Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestinate and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it will come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peace even severe rebuke will be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it will be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined. Calvin would fox supported Whitefields view of evangelism over Wesleys for certain. The second point of argument concerns predestination and sanctitude. Wesley says, Predestination has a discernible tendency to destroy godliness in general for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow aft(prenominal) it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and awe of punishment, the hope of heaven and attention of hell. fit in to Wesley, those who hold to the doctri ne of predestination do not have the same desire to seek holiness as those who do not hold to it.He even makes the assertion that pursual of predestination are more temperamental, especially when confronted with impedance to their doctrine. I believe that Whitefield has the stronger argument when h simply asks how this can be so? Wesley ultimately presents no proof of his assertions, exclusively instead makes accusations from what Whitefield suspects is an experience of debating men who hold to predestination. Those men mustiness have had a strong religious excitement that Wesley mistacit as narrow-mindedness and hostility that flowed from their doctrinal beliefs.Wesley explains that it is expected that those who get away earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints will bring strong opposition to error. Thirdly, Wesley says predestination tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobated, or who only suspect or fear it. He claims that those who hold to the doctrine of predestination do not have the comfort of the assurance of salvation since they can neer be legitimate if they are one of the elect or not.They will at some point and time become doubtful of their salvation, even when they have the experience of the Holy Spirit. Wesley also claims that many people throughout the world who do not hold to predestination enjoy the continuous witness of his Spirit, the unvarying light of his countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many month or years, to this day. erstwhile again, I believe that Whitefield tears grim Wesleys argument when he asks, How does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed election? In other words, how could Wesley have understood the heart of a person who believes in predestination if he never believed in the doctrine himself? He presents a selection from the reformers that show how they were holders of p redestination and yet still described the Christian life as be full of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ Evidently the heart of the elect is not full of turmoil and despair after all.In response to Wesleys belief that some people in the world experience uninterrupted assurance, Whitefield asks how he could ever have known such a thing. thither is no way that Wesley could have made contact with people all over the world that had these experiences. Whitefield understood that everyone goes through doubts and never as a life-long period of assurance of salvation. Even Jesus Christ see measure of doubt in the garden, and what greater moment of darkness has ever been experienced than that of His time on the cross, crying, My God My GodWhy hast thou forsaken me? Wesley then asks, How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offense or fault of theirs , were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings To Wesley, the doctrine of predestination is a terrible one because it condemns men to hell that are undeserving of such punishment. He does not see original sin as being the cause for peoples damnation. In his work, Predestination Calmly Considered, he says, Perhaps you will say they are not condemned for actual precisely for original sin.What do you mean by this term? The sin which that ten committed in paradise? That this is imputed to all men, I allowBut that any will be damned for this alone, I allow not. Whitefield had a divulge understanding of this matter. He viewed all men as being deserving of hell due to the imparted sin of Adams disorder in the garden. He charges that if Wesley denies the doctrine of original sin, then he must take on the doctrine of reprobation for whether Wesley believed it or not the Word of God abides faithful The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. The final issue of argue is over the doctrine of predestination and the Bible. Wesley says, Predestination hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. The point which the wisest of the modern unbelievers intimately industriously labour to prove, is, that the Christian Revelation is not necessary. According to Wesley, the Bible is not necessary because the elect would find faith without it since their salvation is positive by God.This is very similar to his argument concerning predestination and evangelism. Whitefield again has a great answer saying, It is only by the Christian revelation that we are acquainted with Gods design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is settles in the everlasting covenant that this salvation shall be use to the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. He goes on saying that the Bible is a necessity because it is only through Scripture that Gods eternal decrees of salvation take effect.We cannot separate Gods me ans from His ends or His ends from His means. Wesley then goes on to say that Scripture in light of predestination contradicts itself. He uses the case of Jacob have I savourd, but Esau I have hated, as implying that God in a misprint sense hated Esau, and all the reprobated, from all eternity. He sees this as a contradiction due to Scripture saying that God is recognize. He did not view this passage as being a literal hating of the persons of Jacob and Esau, but instead of the temperament within them.In Predestination Calmly Considered, he states, According to Scripture Gods unchangeableness of affection properly and primarily regards tempers and not persons and persons only as those tempers found in them. I believe Whitefield has a better argument since he holds to a more literal interpretation of the Bible without contradiction. He argues that it is not changing Gods character to love Jacob and hate Esau. He says, Might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show pardon to Jacob and the electand yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong?But you say, God is love. And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same favor to all? In the same way, Wesley argues that, in the eyes of the person who holds to predestination, the passage I will have leniency on whom I will have mercy means that God is love only to the elect and not to the non-elect. He says that this is in direct contradiction to Psalm 1149, saying, The Lord is loving unto every man and his mercy is over all his works. If God is loving to everyone, then how can He show mercy to only some?Whitefield says that this mercy mentioned is not saving mercy. He is loving to all in that he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good, but He only sends his saving grace to the elect. He has the right to do this because, as Whitefield puts it, He is a debtor to none, and has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, and at his pleasure. He uses Romans 915 and Exodus 3319 to back up this statement I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Overall, Wesley tries to tear down the doctrine of predestination in light of his doctrine of free grace. To Wesley grace is free to every individual person in the world, and it is on the al-Qaida of acceptance or rejection of that grace that a person is sent to hell or heaven. He explains the unchangeable decrees of God in light of free grace in Predestination Calmly Considered He has unchangeably prescribed to save holy believers, and to condemn obstinate, impenitent unbelievers. According to Wesley, a persons eternal destiny lies solely in whether or not he accepts Gods free grace. I believe Whitefield sums Wesleys argument up well when he states, You plainly make salvation depend not on Gods free grace, but on mans free-will. If this is the case then like Whitefield said, It is more probable Jesus Christ would not have had the satisfaction of see the fruit of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be in vain, and all the invitations for people to believe in him would also be in vain. Both Wesley and Whitefield knew the Scriptures well, but I believe it is Whitefield that truly understood how important election is in the believers theology.Wesley tried to use Scripture to back up his points, but his interpretation of passages led him into the territory of universalism. I believe that due to this dangerous caution it is Whitefield who had the correct understanding of predestination and soteriology. On my honor, I have incomplete given nor taken improper assistance in completing this assignment. Word Count 2455 1 . Ibid. 2 . Wesley, Predestination Calmly Considered, 268. 3 . Whitefield, George. A Letter from? George Whitefield? to the? Rev. Mr. John Wesley, 59. 4 . Ibid. 5 .Calvin, John, Concerning the timeless Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London James Clarke and Co. , Limited, 1961), 138. 6 . Wesley. excuse Grace, 117. 7 . Whitefield. 61. 8 . Wesley. Free Grace, 119. 9 . Ibid. 10 . Whitefield. 62. 11 . Ibid. 12 . Wesley. Free Grace, 119. 13 . Wesley. Predestination, 263. 14 . Whitefield. 68. 15 . Wesley. Free Grace, 120. 16 . Whitefield. 68. 17 . Wesley. Free Grace, 120. 18 . Wesley. Predestination, 279. 19 . Whitefield. 69. 20 . Ibid. 21 . Wesley. Predestination, 279. 22 . Whitefield. 71. 23 . Ibid.