Many on both sides of that age-old argument have gone to scripture for evidence. Both sides have merit and deserve respect . Though many are “sure” of their position and belief, few take the time to explore the other side of the debate. I was raised to have an arminian perpective, but I’ve spent the last two years exploring the calvinist perspective and it has added to the depth of my understanding of grace. I urge calvinists frequently to explore the other side in prayer and without bias. Look for the meat and spit out the bones.

I forget where I got this from, (perhaps here Tim…haha) But I love these words from a young Calvinist (Charles Simeon) to John Wesley when they met face to face:

“Charles Simeon was an Anglican who served Trinity Church in Cambridge, England for 54 years. The story of his life and ministry are fascinating and challenging to modern pastors who tend to be soft and too quick to retreat in the face of opposition and trial.

Simeon tells the following story from his early years of a meeting that he had with the venerable John Wesley. A young, largely unproven Calvinist engages an older, much revered Arminian. The conversation—and heart behind it—is instructive for us today as we contemplate how brothers should relate to those with whom we disagree on important doctrinal points. Too often we allow our disagreements to eclipse completely the fundamental beliefs that we hold in common.

Now let’s allow Charles Simeon join the conversation (he writes about his experience in the third person perspective). He has something to teach us. May the Lord grant us a double portion of his spirit today.A young Minister, about three or four years after he was ordained, had an opportunity of conversing familiarly with the great and venerable leader of the Arminians in this kingdom; and, wishing to improve the occasion to the uttermost, he addressed him nearly in the following words: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions, not from impertinent curiosity, but for real instruction.” Permission being very readily and kindly granted, the young Minister proceeded to ask, “Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved, that you would never have thought of turning unto God, if God had not first put [it] into your heart?”—“Yes,” says the veteran, “I do indeed.”—“And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by any thing that you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”—“Yes, solely through Christ.”—“But, Sir, supposing you were first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?”—“No; I must be saved by Christ from first to last.”—“Allowing then that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?”—“No.”—“What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”—“Yes; altogether.”—“And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?”—“Yes; I have no hope, but in him.”—“Then, Sir, with your leave, I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is, in substance, all that I hold, and as I hold it: and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”The Arminian leader was so pleased with the conversation, that he made particular mention of it in his journals; notwithstanding there never afterwards was any connexion between the parties, he retained an unfeigned regard for his young inquirer to the hour of his death.(Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus Preface, pp. xvii-xviii)”

Yes, yes, and yes! There is a certain glibness and irrational confidence, even a stubborness, that comes with youth. I have noticed this increasingly with 20 somethings or so in our church. And the internet ecourages this attitude—all they need to do is listen to an “expert” on their MP3 and hey! Presto! they are now experts themselves. And if you cite to books and history, you are dismissed as an elitist.The WHI guys did a fascinating interview with Dr. Jean Twenge a while ago, who has written books on this subject, “The Narcissism Epidemic,” and “Generation Me.” These are well worth a read.

I remember reading that sermon by Wesley and I was left speechless. In any disagreement within a doctrinal framework , men of conviction will voice strong opinions but it should always rest within scripture. However personalities being what they are , conflict will occur. Wesley was a devout Godly man , as was Whitefield . It is true both were flawed but within Wesley’s theology lingered the idea that man’s will was not totally captive to sin . From reading his sermons and writings he would fit within most Baptist circles today. I would not call him a semi-peligian but was very close.

dialectical theology:-noun”a form of neoorthodox theology emphasizing the infinite tensions, paradoxes, and basic ambiguities inherent in Christian existence, and holding, against rationalism, that God is unknowable to humans except through divine grace and revelation.”

God is sovereign. So, everything that results is either a direct or indirect (satan as servant) cause of His will. Beyond that we should be hesitant to tread; doubting ourselves but remaining confident in the simple truths of the gospel. The goal of sanctification is to bring us to the simplicity of the gospel… we always get in the way, and we are disciplined as sons.

Thank you DLE.

And, I might add, the fact that Godly, and fruit-producing, men can come from both perspectives tells me two things:

1. Both views have some merit, and

2. Both views have some flaws as well, as, in their current formulations, it is difficult to reconcile them.

This may sound glib, but it seems to me that they are simply two sides of the same coin.

Excellent article Tim

Wesley was a man of God, yet he had error in his theology..That should inform us that our salvation does not depend on anything but the gospel … and that no matter how mature we think we are, we too are subject to error.

I often wonder how the doctrines of grace can not be clearly seen by anyone that reads the scriptures, but there was a time that read it but did not see it too

There is another issue here, aside from the Theology:

“What he preached with all his heart was able to sway his listeners simply because of the force of his rhetoric”

So, what’s the differnec between a shody sermon and a sermon that has no force of rhetoric

Is this about ‘superiority of speech’ [1Cor.2:1].

Surely there are times when force of Rhetoric is needed? especially when defending the christian world view in a post or non christian culture. Surely Paul did use force of Rhetoric in some circumstances, e.g.: Acts 17 “he reasoned with them from the Scriptures”

I read this with interest after being referred by long-time friend, Kevin Survance.I am lifetime Wesleyan who has given long consideration to the Calvinist position. I’ve had the privilege of completing an MA in Theology which helps some, perhaps, but I’ll toss in a few cents and leave it at that.1. I think much of your approach is question-begging in that you would not hold the positions you hold vis a vis Wesley unless indeed you were a convinced Calvinist. That is, I do not see substantiation so much as I see assumptions, for example, that Wesley misuses Scripture. I might counter that his hermeneutic is indeed different from modern Calvinists, but I think his contemporaries would not accuse him of twisting Scripture in the general way you purport.2. To suggest that he has no sense of the classical weight of the discussion is simply…wrong. There is no other way to put it. Wesley was well aware of the weight of this issue. I would suggest that his audience was the defining factor in how far he felt he had to go in covering the matter with all its nuance, etc. He well knew the matter historically and that plays into his hermeneutic.3. To say “Wesley forsook” humility is to do the very thing you accuse him of doing. The statement borrows Wedgewood’s harshness and leaves off her purported fairness.4. If you want a perhaps more theologically astute treatment of the debate in Wesley’s day, see John Fletcher. His dealing with Jonathan Edwards’ writings are at least worth note.But…if it is a done deal that Calvinism is the Scriptural position, then this discussion seems pointless. Reading Free Grace as you have done does little to dissuade that perception for me. The current debate is fraught with much of the fault you mention in this article, not least this matter of forgetting that it is a classical debate with no slam-dunk answers. To suggest Wesley did not know that is a glaring mistake.Finally, of course I am biased towards Wesley. But I am weary of the reformed juggernaut maintaining this idea that he was ignorant of right doctrine, for example. Going in with that assumption is hardly even-handed. Wesley was a great student of orthodoxy and claimed for himself to be only a hair’s-breadth from Calvinism. Dismissing him as semi-pelagian or whatever is as bad as the carricatures with which I grew up — the accusations that Calvinists believe in a “sinning religion” or whatever. I am trying to be more even-handed than that, and this article fails that test for me.I do appreciate the good work you do, though, and would relish more time for a more involved debate on this matter.