Question about theologians

That probably depends on whether you are an Arminian or not. John Wesley was very Arminian. For instance he believed you could lose your salvation. He even wrote a regular publication called "The Arminian". If you lean a little more toward the Calvinist side or even regular Baptist you probably won't like him a lot. He was a nice guy though.

preacherinblack said:

Is John Wesley a good theologian to read his notes?

Click to expand...

AS with any theologian, you must recognize their men first and foremost. And as a man, prone to mistakes.

John Wesley was a bright man, and what developed from him was a very good "social" ministry.

However, I don't follow his theology because, just Arminus said, John Wesley believed and taught that God looked forward in time, seen who would or would not accept and believe the Gospel, and based "election" on that. (See "Foreknowledge")

Just something to ponder.

It would still be good to read his works, that way you can decide for yourself.

Don't take my word for it.

Varify.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Pentecostal perfectionism developed from Wesley's works. Most of what is known as Free Will or Arminianism today is Wesleyan Arminianism. Hr developed the idea of prevenient grace and denied the imputed righteousness of Christ. Though he was a friend of Whitefield he said that Whitefield's God was his devil.

You do realize that there were two Wesleys? One, John Wesley, was a preacher and the other, his brother Charles, was a song writer. Many of the hymns sung today were written by Charles. He would submit his song to his brother and he would edit them to remove the Calvinism from them.

I personally wouldn't recommend him unless you are very sound already in your theology. I would recommend that you read the commentaries by men such as John Gill, Matthew Henry and the sermons by Charles Spurgeon, especially his earlier ones.

John Gill wrote a tremendous volume that is called "A Body of Divinity, that you can read online. Works of John Gill

DeaconDean said:

AS with any theologian, you must recognize their men first and foremost. And as a man, prone to mistakes.

John Wesley was a bright man, and what developed from him was a very good "social" ministry.

However, I don't follow his theology because, just Arminus said, John Wesley believed and taught that God looked forward in time, seen who would or would not accept and believe the Gospel, and based "election" on that. (See "Foreknowledge")

Just something to ponder.

It would still be good to read his works, that way you can decide for yourself.

Don't take my word for it.

Varify.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

twin1954 said:

Pentecostal perfectionism developed from Wesley's works. Most of what is known as Free Will or Arminianism today is Wesleyan Arminianism. Hr developed the idea of prevenient grace and denied the imputed righteousness of Christ. Though he was a friend of Whitefield he said that Whitefield's God was his devil.

You do realize that there were two Wesleys? One, John Wesley, was a preacher and the other, his brother Charles, was a song writer. Many of the hymns sung today were written by Charles. He would submit his song to his brother and he would edit them to remove the Calvinism from them.

I personally wouldn't recommend him unless you are very sound already in your theology. I would recommend that you read the commentaries by men such as John Gill, Matthew Henry and the sermons by Charles Spurgeon, especially his earlier ones.

John Gill wrote a tremendous volume that is called "A Body of Divinity, that you can read online. Works of John Gill

Click to expand...

Admit brother, Gill can get a little deep sometimes.

God Bless

Till all are one.

If you want to understand Wesley read Oden's 3 volumes on his theology.

twin1954 said:

John Gill wrote a tremendous volume that is called "A Body of Divinity, that you can read online. Works of John Gill

Click to expand...

GILL! I'm a Gillite.

DeaconDean said:

Admit brother, Gill can get a little deep sometimes.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

He was thorough for sure. He is sometimes difficult to read because he gives a lot of detail. But if you read him you will be a better theologian than most who have doctorates in theology today.

JM said:

If you want to understand Wesley read Oden's 3 volumes on his theology.



GILL! I'm a Gillite.

Click to expand...

I love Gill for his thoroughness in doctrine, Hawker fore his Christ centeredness and Spurgeon for his zeal for the lost.

I should add Pink to the list for his boldness for truth and undeniable logic.

Just to be clear...I'm a Gillite because I study Gill's work, not follow Gill. I believe Gill's work is helpful and that Christians would benefit from reading his works.

JM said:

Just to be clear...I'm a Gillite because I study Gill's work, not follow Gill. I believe Gill's work is helpful and that Christians would benefit from reading his works.

Click to expand...

Not only would they benefit from studying Gill but it would change the whole way folks do church.

preacherinblack said:

Is John Wesley a good theologian to read his notes?

Click to expand...

No, in fact, a lot of the world creeps into his theology because of his "Wesleyan Quadrangle" of the interpretation of scripture. The 4 things considered in all their interpretation Scripture (thank heavens!), tradition, (human) reason, and (human) experience.

No .. I wouldn't go there if I were you.

skypair

preacherinblack said:

Is John Wesley a good theologian to read his notes?

Click to expand...

John Wesley interpreted the Scriptures as the early Greek Fathers of the Church did—salvation is salvation from sin, and Christians who fall back into sin are no longer saved from sin. In order to be saved, a person must be born again—the old man, the unregenerate self, must die and the new man in Christ is a born-again Christian. If the old man is not completely dead, the Christian is committing adultery against Christ (Rom. 7:1-3).

Additionally, Wesley taught that Christian theology should be based upon four things:

Scripture
Tradition
Experience
Reason

This concept is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Scripture is always of foremost importance, but it should never be studied apart from its historical interpretation and application. Belief in the Bible apart from the experience of it in one’s life does not constitute genuine faith—and the Christian experience must extend beyond one’s self into Christian service. Moreover, one’s beliefs must be capable of being defended in a rational manner based upon sound reasoning.

John Gill relied upon the theology of John Calvin rather than upon the early Greek Fathers of the Church, and interpreted the Scriptures within the framework of Calvin’s theology. He denied the reality of the Christian experience that was so very precious to John Wesley, and insisted that in Roman 7:14-25, Paul was teaching that he himself had been sold into bondage to sin and that he wrote his epistles as a slave of sin. He further insisted that that was the normal Christian experience, and that salvation from bondage to sin could be realized only upon one’s death. His theology was severely contrary to reason, and he made dishonest attempts to prove otherwise—quoting the early Greek Fathers of the Church out of context. Several examples of this dishonesty have been posted on this message board in earlier threads.

Most Baptist theologians take a position somewhere between that of John Wesley and John Gill—some closer to John Wesley, others closer to John Gill. Very many Baptists and other Christians have been unduly influenced by the theology of others rather than by their own time in the Scriptures, humbly and sincerely praying and asking God to teach them His truths, and to protect them from error.

--A. W. Pink
--Charles Spurgeon


Are must haves. Pink's "Sovereignity of God" is a treasure trove. Get your bible out and follow along.

Andrew Jukes "Types in Genesis" is another good(deep) read....

Beware of PG’s misuse of information. The problem is, not everyone has the time to fact check him and he tends to get away with it. Gill held to the framework of the Apostle Paul himself, with a tradition going back to the Prophets & Apostles, Augustine and Aquinas…to name a few. At this point PG might claim Calvin and Gill were scholastic in their approach which is slightly true but proves their use of the Greek Fathers as untrue. What is true? Calvin and Gill knew the works and writings of the early church very well. PG disagrees with this but that’s where the disagreement is found. PG disagrees with Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc. and therefore attacks with unguarded quotes or unrelated facts to tilt the discussion.

It's best to just ignore him.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

PS: I'm beginning to think PG is a Warnite from over on Pristine Faith.

JM said:

Beware of PG’s misuse of information. The problem is, not everyone has the time to fact check him and he tends to get away with it. Gill held to the framework of the Apostle Paul himself, with a tradition going back to the Prophets & Apostles, Augustine and Aquinas…to name a few. At this point PG might claim Calvin and Gill were scholastic in their approach which is slightly true but proves their use of the Greek Fathers as untrue. What is true? Calvin and Gill knew the works and writings of the early church very well. PG disagrees with this but that’s where the disagreement is found. PG disagrees with Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc. and therefore attacks with unguarded quotes or unrelated facts to tilt the discussion.

It's best to just ignore him.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

PS: I'm beginning to think PG is a Warnite from over on Pristine Faith.

Click to expand...

Only one statement in this post is true—“Calvin and Gill knew the works and writings of the early church very well.” Therefore, they knew that none of what are now known as the five points of Calvinism were found in any of the writings of the Greek or Latin Fathers of the Church. The only trace of any of them are found in the writings of Saint Augustine who at one point in his life taught that some Christians are predestined to salvation, and that other Christians are not. The fact that none of the five points of Calvinism have been found in any of the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church is so damaging to Calvinism that a few Calvinists, notably John Gill, have quoted severely out of context from the Early Fathers of the Church to create some false evidence. Many comparisons between John Gill’s quotes and the actual quotes from the Early Fathers of the Church have been posted in other CF threads. Moreover, John Gill either made up some quotes out of thin air, or changed the wording so much that they cannot be identified.

Again, very many Baptists and other Christians have been unduly influenced by the theology of others rather than by their own time in the Scriptures, humbly and sincerely praying and asking God to teach them his truths, and to protect them from error. Please do not make that mistake yourself.

Calvin was influenced by the Greeks, fine.

Gill followed Calvin, but is often accused of being overly Scholastic, that’s fine as well.

PG objects to us building upon the godly men who have preceded us in the faith. It is true we must test what the church has said in the past but we must also not discard everything, pretending we are the arbiters of truth, our own mini-pope. In this regard PG is thoroughly Cartesian or “Modern.” He objects to everything and anyone. He believes he is the final judge in all matters and therefore condemns what he disagrees with. Have you ever read a post by Modernist that was edifying to the church, built you up in the faith and pointed you to Jesus Christ?

I have no problem with saying Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin understood Paul and therefore I agree with them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

convicted1 said:

--A. W. Pink
--Charles Spurgeon


Are must haves. Pink's "Sovereignity of God" is a treasure trove. Get your bible out and follow along.

Andrew Jukes "Types in Genesis" is another good(deep) read....

Click to expand...

Pink!

he made dishonest attempts to prove otherwise—quoting the early Greek Fathers of the Church out of context. Several examples of this dishonesty have been posted on this message board in earlier threads.

Click to expand...

PG, I understand your zeal to turn others into to disciples of doubt and lead them onto pure Reason…but you have no way of proving this accusation. Gill’s theology has been in question but never his character. On the other hand your motives and character are always in question. Attacking Dean after he already apologized is the work of a guttersnip.

jm