Whitefield to Wesley

Ive read this before...Do you know the date when the letter was written?

Thanks

 

Then why not follow your own advice?
MB

 

MB, I have sensed a kinder and gentler RB of late, have you not?

 

I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw that Mr. Whitefield paraphrased 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as saying "chosen...through sanctification by the Spirit. Gee he thought the adverbial clause was connected to the verb. So what does that say about the integrity of those who posted otherwise. I did note that Mr. Whitefield omitted the part that blows the doctrine of eternal election of individuals for salvation out of the water, chosen...through faith in the truth.

 

adverbial clauses can also modify other adverbial clauses...

I'm so glad I told you about adverbial/adjective clauses

 

My new best friend, Mr. Whitefield, agrees with me on the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Who knew?

 

So What's Twenty-Six Months?

I thought instead of starting a new thread, I could just latch on to this one.

Here are some snips of Mr. Whitefield to Mr. Wesley.

"I frankly acknowledge, I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages." (p.7)

"I would hint farther, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood." (p.18)

"But, without the belief of the doctrine of election, and the immutability of the free love of God, I cannot see how it is possible that any should have a comfortable assurance of eternal salvation." (p.12)

"Dear Sir, for Jesus Christ's sake, consider how you dishonor God by denying election. You plainly make salvation depend not on God's free grace, but on man's free-will; and if thus, it is more than probable, Jesus Christ would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be vain, and all invitations for people to believe in him, would also be in vain." (p.19)

"Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Deists, Arians, Socinians, arraign God's sovereignty, and stand up for universal redemption." (p.16)

 

There is a different set of dynamics at work today than in the 18th Century. During Whitfield's time letters took days or even weeks to arrive at their destination. There was no ready access to information. Letters took time to read and even more time to write. Great thought often preceded ink on paper. Internet discussion boards have, for the most part, dampened the amount of thought required before a response is sent. How many times have you submitted a post only to have a reply by the time you have refreshed your screen?

Just because they were skilled at civility did not mean their criticism was not direct and stinging. Charging someone with heresy and blasphemy is powerful stuff and not for the fainthearted. Spurgeon was able to use the full breadth of the English language to skin his opponents over their errors. Some criticisms are hard to deliver and even harder to receive.

 

Hard to deliver and receive: "All of our righteousness is as filthy rags. There are none righteous not one." "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. "Who can know it?

The Lord knows our innermost secrets--the ones we do not want others to know. Where can we hide from God?

We are on a steady diet of sugar-coated sin.

Time to repent and do the first works.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

:thumbs:You can count me among those who could learn from Whitefield and Wesley as well. They are often pointed to as being excellent examples of how Christians should speak to one another. Their friendship was real and deep. I believe Wesley requested Whitefield to preach his funeral.

The were both a rare calibur of man indeed. Thanks for sharing RB:thumbs:

 

I commend you for your attitude.

 

Friends, yes. Fellow laborers, no.

 

You may be more like them than you give yourself credit for.

They were congenial toward ONE ANOTHER- not necessarily EVERYONE they debated.

Wesley could be quite harsh.

But they knew each other approached the subject with sincerity, reason and respect for the Scriptures. Therefore they were able to be patient with each other while despising the likes of unreasonable men.

 

While on the subject of Whitefield's letter...

 

It was the other way around but remarkable nonetheless.