"Excellent truths posted here Gregg; this is why the 'free will' theology is so damning to the soul - it robs the Spirit of His ministerial work in the saving of a sinner and deludes the sinner into thinking he/she can save themselves apart from this supernatural work. The lack of expounding on the doctrines of grace are a big reason why the churches in this country are such a mess." (Lyn)
Lyn is so correct! This is why Arminianism is truly another gospel. It is also why the heresy of "free will" is so vile. Evangelistic campaigns bypasses the Holy Spirit's ministry of convicting the sinner of sin and causes the "evangelistic target" to verbalize a prayer rather than to experience the work of the Spirit in their soul.
Although salvation is instantaneous, the process may not be.The Holy Spirit may take days, weeks, or even months of awakening the sinner to an awareness of his/her sin. Sinners may experience days or weeks or months of prolonged agony over sin and the awareness of violating God's standards. If a "sinner" in an evangelistic foray is not given the opportunity of having sin awakened in them then there is no understanding of what one is being saved from. Coincidentally, most gospel presentations today varying from light touching on what one is being saved from to not even mentioning.
Men like Charles Ryrie or Zane Hodges and the like ignore the need of repentance by an awakened sinner by insisting that repentance is merely changing one's mind about what one thinks about sin. This is why so many of today's pulpits and churches are filled with tares.
Thank you Lyn for your insight comment. Thank you for your insistence on the need for the clear exposition of the doctrines of grace. Thank you for taking the time to both read and comment on this poor, humble blog!
11 comments:
I like what Spurgeon said about John Wesley:
"There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."
Lyn - why wold you delete your comment? It was correct. Spurgeon, as much as I love him and revere him, was not perfect nor was he fallible. I think he was wrong on Wesley.
Bob - I am not saying that God cannot save anyone in spite of what they might believe. But I do believe Arminianism is another gospel and God will lead a person past that false teaching in the process of saving them.
"I think on justification just as I have done any time these seven and twenty years, and just as Mr. Calvin does. In this respect I do not differ from him a hair’s breadth." -John Wesley
"As Protestant Christians, Wesley and Calvin agreed with one another more than they disagreed. Both claimed to follow the heritage of biblical Christianity. Both claimed to follow the ancient creeds and teachings of key patristic writers; for example, they believed in divine creation, the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, salvation, resurrection, eternal life, and so on. They had noteworthy disagreements with Roman Catholic interpretations of the creeds and patristic writers, but they tended to agree about why they disagreed with Catholics. Finally, both claimed to be part of the resurgence of Christianity found in the Reformation and the Protestant traditions that followed them. Certainly both Wesley and Calvin were and continue to be foundational representatives of Protestantism. Thus, if for no other reason than to better understand the whole of Christianity, both Wesley and Calvin should be studied."
"During his lifetime, Wesley openly disagreed with followers of Calvin, though such disagreements did not preclude Wesley from ministering alongside them. Most notably, he disagreed with the Calvinist theology of George Whitfield. Whitfield had been a longtime friend of Wesley. Just as Wesley introduced Whitfield to the value of small group meetings and holy living, Whitfield introduced Wesley to the value of outdoor preaching and evangelism. Whitfield traveled to the American Colonies where he helped to spearhead the First Great Awakening. In Britain, Wesley led the Methodist revival, which similarly contributed to the spiritual renewal of the English speaking world of the eighteenth century. Despite their public debate, both men affirmed and honored the ministries of one another to the amazement of those who observed them—Christians and non-€Christians alike."
http://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/3615/calvin-vs-wesley
Wesley and Prevenient Grace
God's prevenient grace is with us from birth, preparing us for new life in Christ. "Prevenient" means "comes before." Wesley did not believe that humanity was totally "depraved" but rather God places a little spark of divine grace within us which enables us to recognize and accept God's justifying grace. Preparing grace is "free in all for all," as Wesley used to say.
Wesley got the total depravity of man wrong. You cannot get that wrong and understand salvation.
Wesley Wesley and Prevenient Grace
God's prevenient grace is with us from birth, preparing us for new life in Christ. "Prevenient" means "comes before." Wesley did not believe that humanity was totally "depraved" but rather God places a little spark of divine grace within us which enables us to recognize and accept God's justifying grace. Preparing grace is "free in all for all," as Wesley used to say.
Wesley loved medieval Roman Catholic mysticism, and developed his doctrine of perfectionism in connection with it.
Wesley rejected the imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification.
Wesley believed in the heresy of baptismal regeneration.
Bob these are just a few of Wesley's problems. It doesn't matter if Whitefield or Spurgeon think highly of him, it doesn't change the fact that Wesley had some very problamatic beliefs. I wonder if he even understood the gospel.
I thought it interesting that the people who actually knew John Wesley (and what he believed) did not consider him to be a heretic. These men, who I respect yet disagree with on a few issues, respected him and viewed him as a brother in Christ and not did not wonder if he even understood the gospel.
I just thought of something, I am not sure how we got on Wesley to begin with. My post dealt with the damming effect of the heresy of free will. My point was that this doctrine deceives men into thinking they can at any time make a move towards God in order to do something (exercise faith) that would please God while dead in sin.
Yeah. I think that we have discussed that before. My point was basically that many reformers like Wesley and Luther did not ascribe to some of Calvin's views but that did not mean they were heretics.
Yeah. Not sure why Spurgeon felt a need to defend a supposed heretic like John Wesley. Perhaps Spurgeon himself was a heretic? Oh wait, LOL, is it possible for a Calvinist to be a heretic? Heaven forbid!
I hope that I am not offending. My point in all of this is to point out the absurdity of calling people heretics and labeling views that do not agree with one's biblical interpretations as heresy.
Instead of calling each other names and seeking to divide, cannot we not simply discuss and leave the name calling to the atheists?
"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." -John Wesley
"BTW, I didn't label Wesley as a heretic, I do think his teachings were false."
I am okay with that view. Using inflammatory words like heretic and heresy do nothing but divide brothers from brothers.
Here is a note on heresy from Mideast missionary Carl Medairis on the topic.
"The arrogance that heresy hunters manifest is disturbing at best. It suggest that the one has figured out full and final revealed truth, and the other hasn't. Throughout the years I've seen several examples of the one who preached most powerfully against a certain sin, be the one who fell into that sin. Not loving may be the greatest heresy of all."
You can read more of Carl's experience at Wheaton University at http://carlmedearis.com/2012/04/heresy-at-wheaton/
I have no more to say on this topic and do not wish to speak further on it. I think that we have sufficiently shared our thoughts. I wish that we could share our thoughts in person over a cup of coffee. This medium does much to foster misunderstanding.
https://www.theaquilareport.com/is-the-insider-movement-really-that-bad-answers-from-carl-medearis/
When I see Carl Medearis. mentioned I have to share this article about his method of evangelizing Muslims. I will leave it to you to further investigate and rightly discsrn.
Post a Comment