Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« Greetings from the Eastern Sierras! | Main | More from Archbishop Williams and Other Stuff from Around the Web »
Friday
Aug082008

Who Said That?

"This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself.

[The doctrine of Predestination] directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God.  I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell."

OK, who said that?  Leave your guess in  the comments section below.  No google searches  or cheating!

Reader Comments (41)

John Wesley is my guess.
August 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterC T Hall
Has to be ol' smiley-face himself: Finney.
August 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRobert W
I guess John Wesley, but it is really just a guess.
August 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim Vellenga
John Wesley said that in a sermon on Romans 8:32...
August 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Taylor
John Miley ?

Only because it is not as obvious as Finney or Wesley and Dr. Riddlebarger has mention him several times on the WHI
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdlzr
When do we find out the answer?
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterVJ
Matt the Wesleyan;
Loraine Boettner's classic book, "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" is free online here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.toc.html
It is one of the classic treatments. Abraham Booth's "Reign of Grace" is also good and again, free: http://www.jude3.net/brgtoc.htm

Also, bone up on the biblical doctrine of the atonement. Read Turretin from his 'Elenctic Theology'. The substitutionary atonement is denied, and indeed it must if you reject the doctrines of grace, as Wesleyans do.
Finally, a more polemic work and very good one is Owen's 'Display or Arminianism"
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Owen/owen_arminianism00.html
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJ.Moore
Thank you to those who suggested resources on understanding predestination. I really appreciate it.
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMatt
Boy, that cadence sure isn't Finney-esque at all. Wesley seemed to have softer edges to his speech. And since the content also matches, I think the Wesley guessers are right.

(May I make a suggestion to make these posts a bit more interesting and get quotes not just from bad guys? It would be fun to mix and match sometimes.)
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZrim
I've read that one before. It's definitely Wesley. The same argument (kills holiness and virtue) was made against Luther's treatment of justification by grace alone through faith alone. I like Luther's response that he had all sorts of time free to do good works, once he could leave off trying to earn the Father's love and acceptance. I think we give the same answer to semi-Pelagians. If my salvation rests in my hands, then 1.) I'll never be able to hold it and will drop it 10 out of 10 times, and 2.) I'll always be completely preoccupied with trying to keep my hands around it.
HOWEVER, if it rests in God's hands, 1.) it's perfectly safe and *he'll* NEVER drop it, and 2.) I can focus on making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey all that Jesus commanded.
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Z. Bartels
Rev. Bartels wrote:

"....If my salvation rests in my hands, then 1.) I'll never be able to hold it and will drop it 10 out of 10 times, and 2.) I'll always be completely preoccupied with trying to keep my hands around it.
HOWEVER, if it rests in God's hands, 1.) it's perfectly safe and *he'll* NEVER drop it, and 2.) I can focus on making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey all that Jesus commanded...."

I've never seen it laid out in a progression like this before, but I like it...I like it a lot. Good response!
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterGeorge
Finney
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRaymond Coffey
Finney was harsher... well yeah but have you guys read J. Wesley's sermon "Free Grace"? It will challenge the notion that Wesley was softer.
August 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMark Priestap
Based on the language im going to go with Dave Hunt.
August 13, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJames
Based on the language im going to go with Dave Hunt.
August 13, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJames
Jerry Falwell?
August 14, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterChris Donato
My first thought was John Wesley, but the way it was worded made me think of Finney. So I say Finney.
August 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMike Ratliff
Dobson...
August 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRMorris
It has to be Charles Wesley's notorious sermon 'Free Grace'. The language is definitely Wesley, I can spot his way of writing a mile off, and the hyperbole makes it likely to be THAT sermon.

Wesley seems never to have been able to understand what the Reformed doctrine of election is. First of all, despite his uncompromising adherence to an othodox (non-Pelagian) doctrine of Original Sin, he fails to understand that the majority of Reformed folk hold to an election from the 'mass of damnation' of humanity. That is to say, God has elected certain SINNERS to salvation, and has left the rest to perish in their sins. He has not just chosen men out of a mass of otherwise innocent humanity and said that he will make some sinners and some saints.

Secondly, Wesley creates a straw man when he makes election barely to salvation. The Bible teaches that we are elected 'unto good works'. That is to say that God renews the heart. One living carelessly in habitual sin has no reason to think that he is elected. But Wesley persistently says that "the elect will be saved do what they may, the reprobate will be damned, do what they can." Despite Wesley putting those words into the mouth of Augustus Toplady, no Calvinist has ever believed that. The reprobate (those whom God leaves in their sins) will be damned because of what they have done, and the elect will be saved UNTO holiness.

John Wesley seems to have held to the usual Arminian dodge of Prescient Election, that is, God elects unto salvation those whom He forsees will believe. But then they are saved because of something they have done, not by free grace, and in fact they can say that God loved them because (in logical order, not in time) they first loved Him.
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterThe Highland Host
P.S. In an interesting note, John Wesley affirmed substitutionary atonement (see John L. Girardeau's 'Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism' for a discussion of how his successors moved away from Wesley's original teachings). I speak as one who has read the entire works of John Wesley, and would advise others to do the same. But Wesley's original theology is unstable because of these tensions. If Christ has really died in my place, then He has suffered my penalty, and it would be unjust for God to punish me. But according to Wesley Christ had died in the place of all those in hell. Wesley was not a systematizer. It was left to men like John Watson in the UK and Milley in the US to systematize Wesleyan theology, and they saw that substitution does not really work with a general atonement that of itself saves no-one in particular. So they tended to go for the 'Rectoral' or 'Governmental' view of the atonement, which is the classical Arminian position.

Wesley also taught in places a 'general' election, in which God elects a class, not individuals. But I would turn Wesley's laguage on providence against him. As Wesley challenged those who held only to a 'general providence', I would say to him on election and the atonement: "What is a general without particulars?"
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterThe Highland Host

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.