Was Wesley A Christian?
Here is a bit from Wikipedia on John Wesley’s beliefs on free will vs predestination:
Wesley was a strong controversialist. The most notable of his controversies was that on Calvinism. His father was of the Arminian school in the church; but John decided for himself while in college and expressed himself strongly against the doctrines of election and reprobation.
Whitefield inclined to Calvinism. In his first tour in America, he embraced the views of the New England School of Calvinism; and when Wesley preached a sermon on Free Grace, attacking predestination as blasphemous, representing “God as worse than the devil,” Whitefield asked him (1739) not to repeat or publish the discourse, not wanting a dispute. Wesley’s sermon was published, and among the many replies to it was one by Whitefield. Separation followed in 1741. Wesley wrote that those who held universal redemption did not desire separation, but “those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation.”[11]
Whitefield, Harris, Cennick, and others, became the founders of Calvinistic Methodism. Whitefield and Wesley, however, were soon back on friendly terms, and their friendship remained thenceforth unbroken, though they travelled different paths. Occasional publications appeared on Calvinistic doctrines, by Wesley and others; but in 1770 the controversy broke out anew with violence and bitterness. Toplady, Berridge, Rowland, Richard Hill, and others were engaged on the one side, and Wesley and Fletcher on the other. Toplady was editor of The Gospel Magazine, which was filled with the controversy. Wesley in 1778 began the publication of The Arminian Magazine, not, he said, to convince Calvinists, but to preserve Methodists and to teach the truth that “God willeth all men to be saved.” A “lasting peace” could be secured in no other way.
Here’s several questions that this has made me think of:
1. If Election is a crucial doctrine, was Wesley a Christian?
2. Can we learn anything from the friendship of Whitfield (a Calvinist) and Wesley (an Arminian)?
3. Is this an example of the Elephant Theology that we’ve been talking about the past few days?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
GREAT POST! Keep the comments on topic and this should be a great discussion.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Election surely isn’t a cardinal doctrine since many Calvinists come to their theology well after conversion. And if election is true then it is set in stone and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Case closed.
One of the hinderances to good fellowship is arrogance. Until I began blogging I had not encountered it on such a scale. Some Calvinists look down their doctrinal noses at Arminians as if we are “in unbelief” and we do not go by the Bible.
And if, as Calvinists suggest, we should all just preach the same gospel no matter how we view election, then why is election such an issue? If anything, Arminians should be the ones who have an issue with the limited election view. Friendships can be forged as long as Calvinism doesn’t become the gospel.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
1) Yes Wesley was a Christian.
2) We can learn that election and free will are not indentifiers of saved/unsaved, and that all Christians must work together, and preach the Gospel together. This Gospel is not Calvinism, or Arminianism. It is Christ Crucified for sinners, raised bodily from the dead, and ascended in to heaven at the Right Hand of God. Salvation in this Gospel is accomplished by grace through faith. So there it is, if we can work together on this, we can accomplish a lot more than we are doing this damning each other to hell over doctrinal disputes junk.
It shows us that when we don’t elevate 2nd order doctrine (to see what the utmost must be believed doctrines are see 1 Cor.15:2-5) to the level of essential doctrine, we end up doing many great things for the Kingdom of God, working together to minister to a lost world that needs Jesus Christ.
It shows us that disagreements do not = you are apostate.
It shows us that 2 men who were far more biblically intelligent than we are, acted much more mature and Christian than we are.
3)Yes, this is a great example of this. I’ll let Chris L comment more on that though since the Elephant Theology was his big post.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Great post. Most Calvinist where arminians and one point, myself included. So the doctrines outside of the five solas in original context and intermual debates between christians. Although there could be a point that is if are fighting with God and you belevie your doctrine more than the bible then one might not be consider a christian which ever side you are on. That why love and gentleness are so important when talking with other christians. I do not think this is the “elephant theology” becasue the bible is clear and not hiden from our eyes.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Great post. John or Jacob do not equal salvation! Anyways most calvinist where arminians at one point in there life, myself included. The debates on these issues are intramural, between the house of God in most cases.
I do think though that there is a point a person can beholding his theology higher than the bible and actually be fighting against God. They can be come so hostile to the things of God that they are not actually christian(this can happen on both sides of the debate). That is why love and gentleness are so important when discusing things with other brother and sister.
No I don’t think this is a case of elephant theology. Mainly because we have the bible and it is clear and sufficent for everything in touchs upon including the doctrines of grace. Everyone beleives in predestiation and election, they are in the bible. It is a debate about how they work in the lives of believers mainly.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
sorry about the double post
December 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Yes but free will, God changing His mind, etc etc are “all in the Bible too”,
Can we deny them then? This is where the Elephant metaphor comes in to play.
All parts of a great whole that stands outside of our small pathetic view of ‘time’. I believe in predestination, I believe in free will, I believe God never changes His mind, and that He changed His mind in Scripture all at the same time. I also believe the Bible in non-contradictory because All Truth is in God, and God cannot lie.
Figure that one out with a systematic theology, you know?
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I’m getting ready to head out for much of the weekend (lots of things with the kids - all 4 of ‘em have some sort of deal this weekend - and lots of things with the in-laws). I’m not sure how much I will get back in…
Per #3 - I would see this as pertaining to part of the multi-dimensionality of God, in that, having no time bounds, He is beyond our understanding, and the things we humans do to force time-based contradictions (like with election and free will) are contradictory to scripture. That we fight about them is part of human nature. When we realize that the scriptures do not have to contradict (and that the areas we’re aruing over aren’t salvific), and that the apparent contradictions in scripture are as a result of our limited knowledge and not flawed interpretation, the better we will be for it…
Blessings,
Chris
December 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Kyle in Wi.
Don’t worry about it, it was predestined before the foundations of the world.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Also, FYI (and I’m sure this will get me in trouble), I laid out most everything in the “elephant” post that I had previously put out here, absent the elephant analogy. Last January.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Or God had the free will to choose to determine that Kyle should be enabled to choose to double post whilst God knowing for sure that he would do it for He so ordained it.
Go Calvinarminianism!!!
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
that is where systematic theology comes in. The reason you should do this theology is to sit down and study the whole bible. Like you said there are many things in the bible we don’t get when we don’t look at the whole bible. This is what this approach tries to do. Systematic theology presents a coherent body of ideas or principles from studying the word of God. I totally agree that the differneces are based on our limited knowledge not God’s word!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
LOL
December 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
yup i total disagree with that post. I think that personal the doctrine of election is glorious. Read what Calvin actually wrote about it. It reminds me that salvation does not depend on me but God, He will finish what I started. This is great encouragement for a troubled soul. This does not give room for sin though. Peter says to make sure of you calling and election by what you do. This brings you to the balance between faith and works. I am saved by faith which will produce works. Same thing with election. Oh well as Foresst said “that is all I have to say about that”
December 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“I do think though that there is a point a person can beholding his theology higher than the bible and actually be fighting against God. They can be come so hostile to the things of God that they are not actually christian(this can happen on both sides of the debate). That is why love and gentleness are so important when discusing things with other brother and sister.”
A great word.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I’ve read the Bible through and through, plenty of times. The problem I have, is the mental gymnastics I always had to do in order to negate free will so I could hold on to my staunch unconditional election ideas. It’s all about goggles and eisegesis. Do you put on your ‘prior assumption’ goggles before you read the WHOLE Bible on the matter of election/free will?
Election is glorious, but is God any less sovreign if he ALLOWS man to chose something?
Of course not.
I still think you’re missing Chris L’s point with the Elephant thing.
YOU, Kyle, and I, and everyone else, just “dun’t get it” when it comes to ‘time’.
But hey, I can’t blame you for sticking to your guns Kyle. A few months ago I’d be fighting just as hard to preserve unconditional election, and SOME other tenants of Calvinism. Until I realized that if I just let go of those pet doctrines a little bit to reinvestigate the Bible and the Truth of predest./free will, it wouldn’t mean I wasn’t a Christian. Once I remembered that Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other kind of ‘ism’ doesn’t make me a Christian, only Jesus saving blood does, then I realized I had the freedom to let go of my position and look in to the opposite honestly, finally. Before, might have said I was honestly looking at all sides, but I was lying. I was not. I was ‘looking’, but no matter what I was going to say I was right, my position was right. When I remembered belief in staunch calvinistic predestination was not a requirement of biblical Christianity, I was able to honestly see the whole view of Scripture better.
Hope that makes sense.
Gotta hold the baby now.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Posts/conversations that start with the question “Was so-and-so a Christian?” always make me think “Let me get out my Lamb’s Book of Life and check.”
I understand the value of this discussion — good stuff.
But…
December 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Awww..Julie…I thought you were winding up for a riveting comment!!
You’ve been a bit silent in the comments as of late…=(
I enjoy your perspective immensely.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
No.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Julie:
That was kind of my point. Some CR?N writers seem to think they know who is in and who is out. Considering that, according to wikipedia, Wesley actually preached that predestination was heretical, it’s strange that I’ve never heard a bad word about him on the ODM sites.
If you do a search for Wesley on CR?N info, he doesn’t come up at all, in fact.
Who is more of a threat to the CR?N christianity? Bell, McLaren, Warren? Or the founder of one of the largest denominations (Methodist) in the world and the writer of some of the most popular hymns.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I think if I recall the crux of the disagreement was not “predestination” as a whole, rather it was limited atonement.
Wesely held to universal atonement as I do, yet I do not recall him denying that we were predestined to be transformed into the image of Christ.
Funny thing to me is that Whitfield held more grace than most of the ODm’s seem to, as when he was aked about the eternal destiny of Wesely…
iggy
December 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Let me say that I have never thought any of the ODMs or writers here or really anyone who usually dialogues here were not saved. Never. Regardless of the profound and sometimes unpleasant disagreements, I believe we will see each other around the throne.
I can see it now, Ken on one side, Ingrid on the other, and me in the middle. And as we look behind us, there is Iggy tapping us on the shoulder. You can’t make this stuff up!
And when the Lord asks us to break up into small groups Ken, Ingrid, Iggy, Chris R., and a few others sit down to find that our group leader is Rob Bell. Uh-oh, I feel a humor day coming on!!
December 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Tim - was that comment really from Ken? He was saying Wesley was not a Christian?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Rick,
I for one would look forward and truly enjoy that small group! LOL! No… really…
= )
iggy
December 7th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
By the answer from Ken, I suppose that comes out of his Platonist views…
It seems that if Knowledge and belief is what saves us, we do not need Jesus… so if one places knowledge and belief as Ken and the Gnostics do, then they would view someone not as enlightened as themselves as not saved.
Sadly we are not saved by our own enlightened knowledge and we believe God has given us… (not speaking of the bible but that of trust in our own understanding instead of in all are way acknowledging God as He guides our path.) We are only saved by Grace through faith IN CHRIST… and we are only saved by His death, burial and resurrection…
iggy
December 7th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Did someone say Rob Bell? That’s the real question..is he a christian?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Tom M, are you a Christian? Why do you think that you are?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
doesn’t matter if i am, if i’m not then i need to be saved…right?…i’m wondering if his teaching is to be trusted or will it lead me into the vortex of universal spirituality…?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
It does matter if your saved. Rob’s not here yet. If you’re not saved his teaching is irrelevant right now, you’re here.He’s not. So are you saved? What are you putting your faith in? I’m not smart enough to know what the vortex of universal spirituality is so I don’t know. What I want to know if what you think happens to Tom M when he dies and why.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Answer this first then. What makes you “reverend”?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Well Tom M,
I’m ordained.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Suddenly Tom, you seem shy. What’s wrong. You’re just here because you have serious questions, right? So come on Tom M. What happens when you die? What do you believe? I really want to know.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Unicorns and puppies and lollypops, that’s what I believe in. Maybe not the unicorns.
What must I do to be saved sir?
=)
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
In leu of Tom m not answering yet…that’s why I posted..
December 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Well if you must talk about me…just a believer
it’s like Paul wrote
…pressing toward the mark….intent on “finishing the race”
———————————————————————
“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
….. I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
….I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
————————————————–
enough about me…..
i didn’t ask if you were ordained…..the question was more along the lines of what man is to be reverend. That’s God’s name.
“….holy and reverend is his name.” (Ps. 111:9)
enough about you.
————————————————
I’m asking about Bell because you all seem to be big supporters and followers and you should know. I just listened to the his ‘trinity’ redefining and that raised serious questions. One big question was that the description he gave seemed to deny the individual persons of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, calling them “some sort of multiple person” (notice the use of the singular). What was very surprising also was that not a single one of your commenters even caught that or seemed concerned. Reminded me of Jude 4, denying the separate persons of the Godhead. I’d be very concerned.
seems that he’s pied piping and nobody questions? Why?
I’m not discerning that the discerner discerners have any discernment?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Tom M,
“I’m just a believer”
So what? There’s this guy called James. He was a brother or a Rabbi named Jesus, also an early church leader. He wrote, “You believe that God is one. You do well; even the demons believe that and tremble.”
In other words this according to this guy James you haven’t really convinced me yet that you’re going to heaven. I’m scared for you, buddy.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
ever read Pilgrim’s Progress?
I notice that you are guys are big time ping pong players too. Back and forth, back and forth.
What about the pied piper?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Tom M,
Here’s what I think. You are a jerk that doesn’t want to answer questions but you’re more than willing to ask them. If you go to http://www.marshill.org you can find out contact information for Rob. Maybe you can contact him and then you can come back here and tell us. I just hope you believe more than you said before or you may be on your way to Hell.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
P.S. Tom M.
Why this obsession with Rob. Are you gay? Is that why you’re afraid to answer the questions about what happens when you die?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
obsession….I’m not gushing over every word the guy says like y’all..for the life of me though i can’t understand what your (the website’s) obsession with him is. I think you should defend any ‘doctrines’ if you’re willing to promote them.
i’m hoping to be raptured…
if you’d like to end this now, that’l be fine since you cannot answer the original question.
oh….not gay
December 7th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Methinks he doth protest too much” LOL
December 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“Tom M, Here’s what I think. You are a jerk…”
Rob teach you this “loving” witness Reverend Martino. Disgusting display.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Oh dear, a dispy.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
so far i’ve got jerk, gay, and dipsy…..
it’s too easy…it’s too easy
December 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
1. Great book. Read it three times as a young person.
2. Yet you seem to have lobbed in your own ball…
3. Tom M., what are you trying to say? Pied Piper? Wha?
What is this original question you want Joe to answer? If Rob Bell is a Christian? Did you not read my earlier comment regarding people determining who other Christians are?
What ways are we able to see who seems to be a Christian? Their fruit? Rob Bell’s teaching, books, reaction to naysayers, etc. show much better fruit than some of these overly wizened ODM plank-eyes.
Again, what is your point here? Depending upon the translation you’re using…there is none. (Ps. 111:9)
I think you need to get your thoughts together in a more coherent fashion because I’m not clear on what your point is, except that you’re not gay.
I can’t fathom being gay or not gay as necessary to bring into this discussion.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
IF you’re hoping to be raptured, then you are a dipsy. It’d be like Rick being offended if I called him a Baptist.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I certainly do not get your point, Tom. I am not a supporter (as you put it) of Rob Bell but I thought his attempt to draw out the Trinity in Genesis was very creative, I liked it. The divinity of Christ is a “die over” issue but the Trinity is not.
What is a person and all three revelations of God are the same in substance but different in persons how does that work? And if the Bible is so understated pertaining to that doctrine why do some use it as a heresy club?
I espouse the orthodox view, but if someone says that the three manifestations of God are all one person and He is God (Jesus) fine. Very fine indeed, let’s break bread. And remember, everything the Bell says isn’t susoect so when he makes a good point and a creative teaching that is well within the parameters of orthodoxy, then those who attack him for that reveal an agenda that is motivated by a dislike for the person rather than an objective, loving, and humble discourse about some concerns.
I could name names but I think you know.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
not offended in the slightest….but “dispy”, short of course for dispensationalist, ya know…yuk yuk elbow elbow. No problemo senor.
what I still want to know is why when someone redefines one of the most absolute cardinal doctrines of holy scripture i.e. the trinity, not a one of you has a lick of sense enough to even recognize it, but carry right along with a discussion on your new diapraxed understanding of “some sort” of something or other…is it the piper’s flute that has you mesmerized? Snap out of it man
December 7th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Tom,
I never called you gay. I did call you a jerk. I apologize. I asked if you were gay. You seem to be really worried about a guy you never met. You also asked if he was heterosexual. That seemed to imply that you wanted to know if he was on the market. As for you being easy that’s between you and whatever you believe in.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
The Trinity is not one of the most absolute cardinal doctrines of Holy Sciptures, as a matter of fact it is very unclear especially for a cardinal doctrine. I did not think Bell was dismantling that doctrine, I thought he was giving a embryonic expose about the first revelation of the same.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Where did the term dipsy come from? Dispensationalist?
How did being ‘gay’ get brought up anyways lol?
Joe
December 8th, 2007 at 12:02 am
What’s up Henry….if you don’t think an understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is that important then you probably should go back to school. It’s of the utmost imperative and any body who denies the three distinct persons of the Godhead is simply a bringer forth of heresy.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Don’t ever let anybody talk you out of that. Maybe you will take some time to read a classic work on the subject and educate youself. It was written by John Owen many years ago. Non-negotiable issue, and grace will not cover it.
Trinity and Person of Christ by Owen:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/owenbrie.htm
highly recommended
re: Rob Bell
The issue has nothing at all to do with the man per se for we wrestle not with flesh and blood
Julie..what’s up
the point is very simple…here’s a guy that’s denying the Godhead and redefining it for one example as “some sort of…” (something) which leaves the door wide open for further diaprax…meaning as soon as we decide exactly what ’sort’ it is we’ll go with that. Can’t you all see that. It matters.
if all this seems to be incoherent….well, don’t pay attention i suppose.
……and Julie, if that verse is not in your bible…well, I’d get another bible.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Wait…what can’t grace cover..?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am
There is more teaching (I said teaching) on the gift of tongues than on the Trinity, so is tongues a cardinal doctrine about which grace cannot cover?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Henry….can you give me a harder question please?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Rob Bell believes in the Trinity. Maybe you should ask him yourself, or better yet, study what he’s preached, taught, and written.
What he said is perfectly reasonable, considering the Bible does’t come right out and say “God is three cognizant egos as One God”. What he said is plainly talking about the Trinity, and you also must consider his audience as well. What he said is no less than what the Bible says, or what the early creeds say.
If you asked Rob Bell if he believed in the Trinity as historically understood by the Christian Church, he would say yes, and give you a definition of that which fits well within the bounds of the Bible.
Three “persons” is just a reasonable and true extrapolation of Scripture. But saying ’some sort of Word..some sort of Spirit…”, is reasonable within the context of GENESIS 1 (which is where he’s speaking from), since nothing else in the Bible has been revealed yet. He’s coming at it from a “never read anything, or known anything about God before” perspective. Maybe you should see the WHOLE video before you make a judgment of this man’s salvation like that.
Sheesh, there are much bigger and more obvious problems with Rob Bell than this Trinity issue.
Joe
December 8th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Tom m..
You’re coming across a bit arrogant right now. Maybe you should tone it down a bit and be civil and answer some questions.
Just some brotherly advice.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:21 am
You must know me from someplace else since you call me Henry and my label says Rick. Where have we crossed paths before? (harder question)
December 8th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Hey Tom, are you saying basically that if I believe that I am a sinner and the only way for me to get to heaven is by the grace of God and I repent and accept that Jesus died for my sins and I can’t earn it, BUT I believe that there is only one person in the Godhead and He has a Triune nature that allows Him to do this, that I can’t get to heaven?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Henry..er….Rick…..must be the last name..remembered it from seeing on other posts somewhere some time i guess….can’t really say…..auto pilot
guess that question was too hard
December 8th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Tom M,
I’m going to bow out after I apologize again for calling you a jerk and stating a rather obvious point. You don’t know squat about what Rob teaches and you don’t really care to. His sermons are online. His teaching on the trinity is online. Or was 20 minutes ago when I checked. You’re here for less than pure purposes. Now, you have a good night, I’m going to sleep.
Seriously, are you a heterosexual?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:42 am
There is no teaching on the Trinity, we come to that conclusion by piecing togather Scriptures. (Jesus’ baptism, etc.). What is a “person” and how can three separate “persons” be the same? Do any of the visions about heaven in Revelation put the Father and the Son in the same picture? And the Spirit seems to be conspicuously invisible and unmentioned.
Using the Trinity as a doctrinal billy club is baseless.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:50 am
First, nowhere have I questioned anybody’s salvation, this is not the issue at hand.
Dave, if you were to preach that doctrine I’d say that you were preaching another gospel, another Jesus, and another Spirit.
and then I’d probably add this:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Dave, so are you saying that I can believe in another Jesus who is just a manifestation? If that is the case then the question that needs to be raised is whether or not I even really know Jesus at all.
Do not forget…many will come on that day saying “Lord Lord” only to hear…”Depart from me…I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23; cf. Matt. 25:11-12). Harsh words…all the while they will be crying but”Lord Lord”.
Is it really important?
This is a question of personal relationship, truly knowing the Lord Jesus Christ, even as one man knows another. This is much more than knowing ‘about’ him…even if it’s not quite right…I said the sinner’s prayer after all.
He is a person, sitting now at the right hand of the father interceeding for His own.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Do you know Him?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Tom M.
You just crossed the line into being dishonest. You lied. You did question salvation.
That’s too bad you can’t be honest with us and yourself.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:57 am
You have raised the doctrine of the Trinity to the same level as the gospel itself. The people who were saved at Pentecost knew nothing of the Trinity along with Peter himself. Show me from the New Testament where the epistles teach the Trinity, not just ariving at that from inference?
The whole thing is a straw man that is not a salvation issue. The divinity of Christ, Jehovah in human flesh, that is a salvation issue. And as Joe said Bell believes in the TRinity so you now must admit he is saved.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Wow . . . such an edifying conversation this is . . . :I
My personal answers to the original questions:
1) IF Election is a crucial doctrine, there’s no way anyone but God would know if Wesley was actually “elected” . . . but then, how do we know that anyone is “actually a Christian”? Only God knows our hearts . . .
2) Yes, there’s something we can learn from Wesley’s and Whitfield’s friendship . . . they either put their differences in theology aside or at least didn’t argue about it sarcastically unlike SOME people . . .
3) I really don’t know. I just know that elephant/dog picture was amazing.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:58 am
I second that. Two or three witnesses.
I think you need to repent of that Tom. And I think this conversation is finished until you can be civil and loving, and stop twisting Scriptures to suit your own judgmental end. The Trinity is what it is, let’s leave it.
As for me, I have an infant who finally went to sleep, so that means it’s my beddy time too. Night all.
Love,
Joe C
December 8th, 2007 at 1:00 am
PS, Rick I agree with you about the pentecost sermon and the lack of the Trinity in it. Good point. I was thinking the same things the last few weeks.
Joe
December 8th, 2007 at 1:06 am
John 14:17
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
Rick, with all due respect, the Holy Spirit is throughtout the Word of God identified as having personality. I cite one example only (above) of many possible.
Note ‘him’ (3x), he(2x), and this is just one verse. These are personal pronouns.
Ok, just one more since you asked…..Rev. 5
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Here we see Jesus, as the Lamb who had been slain, taking the book from the hand of him that sat on the throne.
Certainly you must agree that the one on the throne is God the Father.
—————————————-
Joe….the reason i’m here is because some things are worth fighting for…..the ‘trinity’ of the Godhead especially.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Tom M
You’re preaching to the choir when it comes to believing in the Trinity.
What you are doing wrong however is using that as a litmus test for salvation. You’re bringing an understanding of God that was obviously not required for salvation in the first evangelistic sermons of the Bible, up to the level of ‘required to know and believe at the time of salvation’. This is not good. Not Biblical.
You can see my blogpost on this subject here
Goodnight
Joe
December 8th, 2007 at 1:11 am
The problem is, tom, the person you’re whining about (Rob Bell) hasn’t “redefined” the Trinity, so you’re building a straw man from the get-go… The really odd thing is that you’re trying to build the straw man based on a 90-second clip in which Bell lays out the very first mention of God as both one and three.
It just seems you’re looking to slander a brother in Christ just for the sake of being argumentative.
Additionally, you’re building “another gospel” in your adding the doctrine of Trinity to the gospel.
Seeing as how all of the systematic theology around the doctrine of Trinity wasn’t settled for 300 years after Jesus’ death, I would think that Jesus or Paul or one of the other apostles just might have wanted to mention that “key aspect” of salvation so that people for the next 300 years didn’t go to hell for getting it wrong…
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Joe M.
I’m finished too…but before I go, please show me where I have lied and called into question any particular person’s salvation.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:25 am
CL….no, what I’m saying is, just for the record, is that you are running off into never-never land, and this re-defined doctrine of the trinity is only one example of where you are being led down the path into what will, down the road, eventually become a “vortex” of universal spirituality.
and basically i’m trying to say, hey wake up man, but
you say “no we’re not” and “no, you’re wrong..”
and so, ok then….leverB
ciao
December 8th, 2007 at 1:54 am
A couple thoughts…
1. “If you go to http://www.marshill.org you can find out contact information for Rob. Maybe you can contact him and then you can come back here and tell us”
- The ordained, Reverend Joseph Martino.
Let me just keep you from wasting your time Tom. The whole emailing Bishop Bell thing, it doesn’t work — been there, done that.
2. http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com/category/rob-bell/
Tom, there’s some Rob Bell information there. If you email me (pastordave8186@gmail.com), I will send you a paper on emerging soteriology.
3. The terminology on this thread is driving me crazy. EVERYONE who believes the Bible believes in election. There’s no debate there — the Scriptures are loaded with the word and other closely related concpets.
The issue is that some believe we are elect because God sovereignly chose us while others believe we are elect because God foresaw our faith. Then there is a whole other group of people that fit somewhere in the middle — I am in that group and we are usually painted as either one side or the other, depending on who wants to shoot us down.
I am not going to argue the biblical issues on election here, because the conversation will never end — However, let me make it clear, election is not the gospel. It is an important doctrine that has been argued by godly men throughout the history of the church.
However, that doesn’t get Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and others of the hook. They are soft universalists who deny the existence of heaven and hell as places in the eternal state. Now, those things are gospel issues!
December 8th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Tom,
Trinity hasn’t been “redefined”… The only vortex is the one that has sucked every bit of logic out of your brain, dude…
December 8th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Wow,
From all I gathered in my learnin’ of the ole Trinity…
We get from the start the idea of singular.
God…
and then a few verses later, this “God” speaks of Himself in a plurality which is in Hebrew Elohim…
So far that is all Rob Bell stated… but in all my studies that is how we START out getting to the idea of Trinity so I am very confused in how this is a redefinition of anything that was not already taught by other Trinitarians over the vast centuries…
Yet, if Trinity is essential for salvation as a belief, the show me a verse that states so… Yes there are verses that show Trinity at work. But show me a verse where it plain states like this one about Jesus, that “Trinity” is also to be so believed.
John 6:28-29
1 Timothy 1:16 16.
Now again these are just two of many examples of what and who we are to believe for salvation yet, I find no such verse that speaks of “Trinity” in the same manner. I am not talking of the literal word but even the concept of Trinity…
The closest thing is that Jesus states that no one can come to the Father except through Him… but still this does not state one must believe in the idea of the Trinity…
I am not stating Trinity is not true or in the bible… it is. I am stating that as far as salvation, to expect one to believe on the “Trinity” to be saved, when even the greatest of theologians will tell you that they cannot explain Trinity is a bit out in “never never land” to me. In fact it is unbiblical as one then crosses into Platonist Abstractist understanding that Abstract thought is of higher reality and this “spiritual Knowing” is what saves us… it is placing faith in one’s beliefs rather than Jesus.
As far as I am concerned that is Gnosticism and was condemned and even written against in the New testament.
We are to believe on Jesus to be saved, not on our own understanding…
iggy
December 8th, 2007 at 7:02 am
The thread has been hijacked. Can we discuss Bell in another post?
If you do a search for Wesley on CR?N, he doesn’t come up at all. If he taught that predestination was a heresy, why isn’t this addressed at CR?N?
Who is more of a threat to the CR?N christianity? Bell, McLaren, Warren? Or the founder of one of the largest denominations (Methodist) in the world and the writer of some of the most popular hymns.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:36 am
And there it is. The watchdoggie arrogance. If you believe in the Bible you believe what I believe. Thus you are insulated from argument or reform because all you have to say is “you don’t believe the Bible”.
Answer the question Clearly, was John Wesley a Christian? Because he didn’t believe in election.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Dave - I appreciate your comment.
Tim - everyone does believe in election, some believe in unconditional and some do not. Dave was just making a distinction and he was right. I believe in election. I don’t believe Dave was being arrogant. He gets testy about other issues but I cannot remember him lighting the Frankenstein fires about Calvinism.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I wonder if I came to Dave M’s blog (clearly) and posted a link to my blog castigating Mr. Silva if that link would get up. Even the Jr. Watchdoggies live by different rules.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:02 am
A valid point, Joe.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Tim,
I think you missed the point of Dave’s comment re: election - it is the “unconditional” aspect, and its manifestation, that is at the heart of the disagreement.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Alright then. Fair enough. I may have jumped the gun based on Clearly’s past positions.
I apologize if that’s the case.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:14 am
BTW Dave Marriot, I believe your little moniker for Rob clearly shows your heart.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Where, praytell, did you get the idea that I was suggesting the verse “wasn’t in my Bible?” Just because I said in different translations it doesn’t use the word “reverend” and that the point you were trying to make with it, directed towards Joe and his being ordained, was unclear to me?
If that’s how you interpreted my plain, modern, English, that explains quite a bit, right there.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Julie,
Can you give me a time stamp for the comment you’re quoting
December 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Nevermind I found it. Why do I have a feeling that Tom M is an ODM in incognito?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Time: December 8, 2007, 12:02 am
December 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I still do get much of this conversation… is Tom stating that the Trinity is not in Genesis?
Try reading it this way…
In the beginning God…
The Holy Spirit hovered above the abyss (waters).
Then God said, “Let there be…”
We have God the Speaker.
God the breath (Holy Spirit)
God’s Word that brings forth life… and is life… Jesus.
If the Speaker speaks words he is in essence the Father of His own words.
We have the Trinity right there in Genesis…
Not to mention we have the Gospel written in the names of those in Genesis http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2005/11/hidden-gospel-in-genesis-5.html
That is a very interesting study!
So if that is what Tom is stating, then he need to study more!
LOL!
iggy
December 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“Answer the question Clearly, was John Wesley a Christian? Because he didn’t believe in election.”
John Wesley was a Christian, insomuch as I have the ability to ascertain anyone’s salvation. What I am trying to say, there is so no reason to beleive that he wasn’t a Christian, even Whitfield believed that Wesley would be closer to Christ in heaven than was he.
BTW, my past positions? My blog doesn’t take positions against these guys on the whole Calvinism thing. If they wan’t to lean Arminian that’s fine with me (I’m not there, btw), but I feel they have a whole slew of other problems!
Jr. Watchdoggie? Hmm, sounds like a hamburger. Can I be a jr. watchdoggie with cheese? I like cheese. It makes me smile.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:04 am
BTW…wikipedia? Such a scholarly source for such a scholary research blog.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Enjoy
December 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Clearly - feel free to provide info on Wesley that contradicts wikipedia.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
A little more research about Wesley not from wikipedia:
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/01/christian-cruise-bout-thirty-years-ago.html
December 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Such a scholarly source for a scholarly research blog
–>Clearly
haha, I have been to your schools faculty page. Not sure that I would pick on anyone else’s scholarship if I was going to that school.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
And now we ask a question that beckons on the heels of whether Wesley was a Christian. Was John Calvin a Christian? He, unlike Wesley, was a man given to pride and demanded strict adherance to his view of doctrine.
A deft politician his energy captivated whole cities in his theological grasp, some willingly and some by strong coercion. Unltimately Calvin had three men (Servetus and others)Â murdered at the stake half for their view of the Trinity and other non-Calvinistic doctrines and half because Calvin could not endure personal affronts. Servetus had attended a sermon service by Calvin and Calvin had him arrested after the service.
So compare Wesley’s obsession with humility against the backdrop of John Calvin’s pride and act of murder. So who can be considered a Christian? I believe Calvin was a Christian as flawed as Luther however Wesley’s orthopraxy was light years more Christlike than was Calvin’s. So Calvin is not untouchable, he was as human and carnal as the best of them, I mean, I haven’t murdered anyone…yet.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Not to mention he was a murderer.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
hey lemmings….what’s up..did ya miss me
hey I hear that Zamfir is having a concert soon….you know, ‘master of the pan flute’….got yer tickets?
——————————————————-
Julie…I apologize ‘to you’ if I came across as a bit abrupt….here’s where i got the idea…you said
“Again, what is your point here? Depending upon the translation you’re using…there is none. (Ps. 111:9)”
It seemed the reference was to the vs. not to the word (reverend) itself. I don’t know, haven’t read the ‘message’, etc. and didn’t know if maybe you were talking about something like that. I use the KJV, all others are like ‘flat soda’ imo.
Briefly also, the reference to Pilgrim’s Progress was to point out the necessity of finishing the race, which is why I was mentioning “pressing toward the mark” when being pressed on where will I go when I die….
didn’t want to hear the Kirk Cameron spiel that’s all.
———————————————————
Lastly….if you all are happy with the trinity of the Godhead being described as “some sort” of ethereal manifestation of a “creative community”…..then it’s a sorry lot.
Salvation is found in a ‘person’, the Lord Jesus Christ, and not in holding correct doctrine. Paul wrote about counting all things a loss….to go after the one goal……”that I may know him”
But, if the doctrine of God the Son is incorrect, how can a person ever truly know Jesus Christ. They cannot. That is the point. For one reason, the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth”, the third person of the trinity, will never ‘bear witness’ to anything ‘false’, like an incorrect view of Almighty God. Period. Critical to understand this.
But in accepting this teaching you are allowing the trinity of the Godhead to become the “Unknown God” of ‘Mars Hill’…
and it’s all downhill from there.
if you refuse to see that than this is a true statement:
The discerner discerners have no discerment.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Rick Frueh said:
“Show me from the New Testament where the epistles teach the Trinity, not just ariving at that from inference?”
The book of Acts has a good example of presenting the Holy Ghost as a person that interacts with the Christian and not just an “active force of God”:
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the HOLY GHOST said, Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I (personal pronoun) have called them (Acts 13:2 KJV).
So they being sent forth by the HOLY GHOST, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus (Acts 13:4 KJV)
F Whittenburg
December 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Tom M,
That post was kind of douchey.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Wow, Lemmings that hurt. From a guy who only uses the KJV too. Shouldn’t it be. How are thou, my lemmingish friends. Alas, thou has doth missed me.
Seriously Tom, I got to thinking and I want to answer your original question because I am sure it is asked because you truly want to know. So pause one minute while I go up and look for it. BRB
December 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
At 9:10 yesterday, Tom M hijacked this thread and asked,
Failure to capitalize Christian aside. I will now answer Mr. M’s question.
Answer:”Yes, Tom he is.”
December 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Ken, I almost missed your comment up there. Must have been caught up in moderation or something. I think you are a liar so I’m not going to address you here. That’s not calling you a jerk, that is saying that you do a poor job of representing Christ because you lack the ability to stand by your word and be honest. You either lack the ability to tell the truth, or you simply do not know the truth and therefore what you say is always filled with veracity issues. Your commenting here after repeatedly saying you were not coming back is one such example. You repeatedly claim the title pastor, let me share a verse with you;
here’s another one for you to gander at
Here’s a few more:
Ken, when you repent of your dishonesty and issue a public apology of being dishonest and lacking the ability to keep your word, I’ll interact with you. Until then, just be quiet and let the adults talk.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Tim, can’t really apologize for playing a bit ‘rough’ perhaps…my bible says ‘contend earnestly’…
The stakes are high….
but gotta go now…ttfn
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”
December 8th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Tom M,
I’m doing a project on Jude right now, could you tell me what that phrase meant to the original hearers? Also could you give me your take on why Jude quotes the apocrypha?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Tom M,
I didn’t say you were being “a bit rough” or “earnestly contending” I said your post was douchey.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
‘playing rough’?
I see no “playing rough” - just someone being an obtuse jerk with only about half a clue on exegesis, hermeneutics and zero grace when it comes to differentiating between narrative and didactic presentation.
No playing rough, tom. Just pain dull and stupid.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
That IP seems different than the other Ken’s comments, no?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Rick,
I can’t see his IP address. I only have access to the last 20 comments.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Tom,
Do you know what the difference between contend and defend is?
Contend is pushing toward the prize… in that there is no need to abuse others as you work out your salvation with fear and trembling…
Take some time and look at the difference between “contend” and “defend”… I think you have confused the two and in that misunderstand what Jude is stating.
Contending for the faith while being defended by the Truth who is Jesus Christ,
iggy
December 8th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Rick
His IP address is different both times. I’m guessing he’s using a proxy server to get around being moderated.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
The 66 IP he has used many times before. It was a genuine sighting!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
If that was Ken Silva, do I understand his comment that Wesley was not a Christian? (12/07/07 6:35 PM)
December 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I think he was saying that Rob isn’t saved. Which is interesting considering what Jesus said about the Pharisees and why they couldn’t tell the truth.