Charles Simeon Takes on John Wesley (sort of)

[Jono Smith]

Hey,
I know it's dangerous to open the Calvinist v Arminian Can o' Worms, but given that Charles Simeon is (or should be) a poster boy for evangelical Anglicans in Melbourne, I just couldn't resist sharing with you something I posted on my blog after researching Simeon for a sermon I preached last week on Psalm 4.

Anyway, here's the transcript of a conversation that probably serves to remind 'Young, Restless, and Reformed' types (like me) to be more gracious and pull our heads in every now and then:

Simeon to Wesley: 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. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Wesley: Yes, I do indeed.

Simeon: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Wesley: Yes, solely through Christ.

Simeon: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

Wesley: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Simeon: 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?

Wesley: No.

Simeon: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Wesley: Yes, altogether.

Simeon: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Wesley: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Simeon: 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.

Wise words from an Anglican bloke whom God used powerfully to reform the church and spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

If you like, you can get the original blog post here.

[Paul Barker]

A good year to celebrate a great servant of God: Charles Simeon is 250 on Sept 24, 2009.

[Jordan]

Hmm. Does that conversation prove that young zealots ought to be more gracious....or that Wesley was also a Calvinist?

Jordan

[Jono Smith]

Jordan wrote:

Hmm. Does that conversation prove that young zealots ought to be more gracious....or that Wesley was also a Calvinist?

Jordan

The Wesleys were Calvinists for sure!
In heaven they hang out with C. S. Lewis and the 3 of them joke about how they played with everyone's minds and made them think that they were ardent Arminians...

Just read their hymns!

Charles Wesley: "And Can It Be?"
    Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
    Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
    Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
    I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
    My chains fell off, my heart was free,
    I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

As Dr John "Rabbi" Duncan put it when he read some of their hymns, "Where's your Arminianism now, friend?"

[Andrew Bowles]

'Does that conversation prove that young zealots ought to be more gracious....or that Wesley was also a Calvinist?'

Or as J.I. Packer, puts it, an 'inconsistent' Calvinist? I did my evangelical history essay on this question. The answer....is no. So perhaps young zealots still need to take heed.

[Jason]

...
Charles Wesley: "And Can It Be?"
    Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
    Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
    Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
    I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
    My chains fell off, my heart was free,
    I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

As Dr John "Rabbi" Duncan put it when he read some of their hymns, "Where's your Arminianism now, friend?"

Probably with God in glory - praise God! ;)

[David Palmer]

No, Wesley was an Arminian, and nowhere was this more certain than in his controversy with that other great Calvinist of the period, George Whitfield, over the doctrine of election and related matters.

However they did restore their former warm relationship later on in life without resiling from their doctrinal differences. At Whitfield's request, Wesley preached at Whitfield's funeral and made many comments about his friend that demonstrated his great affection and appreciation for him.

I find thius particularly apposite the rancour (both sides) in a number of the threads at present on the Sydney Anglican Forum with quite a few Catholics joining in the discussions, indeed in some cases starting some of the discussions.

Given the constant attacks in the public domain on Christian positions, not least of all as will become apparent in the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project being currently undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission, it is vital that we evangelicals work with other orthodox Christians whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. We have far more in common with traditional conservative Catholics than we have with liberal Protestants, and I know this to be so having worked with Melbourne Catholics over the past year or two on pro life and other related issues.

PS I hope (evangelical) Melbourne Anglicans are putting in a submission either thro' the Diocese or separately??

[Jordan]

Jono Smith wrote:

As Dr John "Rabbi" Duncan put it when he read some of their hymns, "Where's your Arminianism now, friend?"

Exactly.

[Jereth]

Jordan wrote:

Jono Smith wrote:

As Dr John "Rabbi" Duncan put it when he read some of their hymns, "Where's your Arminianism now, friend?"

Exactly.

I heard a saying once that most Arminians are actually Calvinists when they're on their knees, which I think is probably right. (They pray- "thanks Lord for saving me", not "thanks Lord for giving me enough prevenient grace to exercise my free will to choose to believe in you")

David Palmer wrote:

Given the constant attacks in the public domain on Christian positions, not least of all as will become apparent in the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project being currently undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission, it is vital that we evangelicals work with other orthodox Christians whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. We have far more in common with traditional conservative Catholics than we have with liberal Protestants, and I know this to be so having worked with Melbourne Catholics over the past year or two on pro life and other related issues.

Heh heh, my wife and I watched a TV documentary the other week about the life of Pope Benedict, and commented to each other how much we wished we could convert to the Catholic religion (if only they got rid of that Mary stuff and a few other dodgy things ) - at times we felt we had a lot more common ground with the Pope than with Rowan Williams and many other of the Anglican leaders out there... We love what he said just before Christmas about "ecology" (ok I'd better shut up now)

PS I hope (evangelical) Melbourne Anglicans are putting in a submission either thro' the Diocese or separately??

David, could you please elaborate a little about all this? I've heard a little through the ACL newsletter but am still rather in the dark about it. Is it an attempt to suppress criticism of other religions a bit like those Victorian "religious vilification" laws?

cheers
Jereth

[David Palmer]

Hi Jereth,

I wrote an article on the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project for the December AP - you can view it here: http://ap.org.au/images/2008AP/AP1208.pdf by scrolling down to page 30.

Happy New Year!

David

[David Palmer]

Hi Jereth,

You say in jest (I think!),

"my wife and I watched a TV documentary the other week about the life of Pope Benedict, and commented to each other how much we wished we could convert to the Catholic religion (if only they got rid of that Mary stuff and a few other dodgy things ) - at times we felt we had a lot more common ground with the Pope than with Rowan Williams and many other of the Anglican leaders out there..."

I have several friends, Lutheran Pastors who have converted to Catholicism in recent years, actually one just before Christmas, partly over the issue of authority but also over the issue of confessional integrity. I have another good friend, a former Melbourne Anglican Vicar, who was received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church some years ago and priested.

I think so long as Protestants imbibe liberal theology and play church there will always be those who will cross over to Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I am so glad to belong to a denomination that is confessionally bound. One consequence is that I have liberty to work with Catholics/Orthodox without feeling any necessity to throw up Luther, Calvin et al.

Hang in there Jereth and do all in your might with like minded Anglicans for confessional integrity!

[Jereth]

Greetings David,

David Palmer wrote:

You say in jest (I think!),

"my wife and I watched a TV documentary the other week about the life of Pope Benedict, and commented to each other how much we wished we could convert to the Catholic religion (if only they got rid of that Mary stuff and a few other dodgy things ) - at times we felt we had a lot more common ground with the Pope than with Rowan Williams and many other of the Anglican leaders out there..."

Not entirely in jest, mate. The doctrinal faults of Catholicism -- Mary, the re-sacrificing of Christ in the mass, faith+works, etc. -- certainly make our conversion to Catholicism very very unlikely.

However, we have many a time had a genuine heart-felt admiration for and envy of Roman Catholicism, and the 2 popes who have reigned in our lifetime. Unlike the Protestant churches, who keep giving ground to modern culture and ideology, Catholicism seems incredibly resistant to liberalisation -- they simply refuse to budge from historic doctrinal positions. They don't care if that makes them unpopular or an object of popular scorn -- faithfulness to orthodoxy (and to God) matters much more to them. We admire, for instance, how the Catholic church keeps giving the finger to the pro-death lobby and gay lobby no matter what the cultural pressure -- where others like the Anglicans and Uniting Church simply cave in. Yet Catholicism also cares for all the important global issues like war & peace, the poor, and the environment, about which we are also passionate. Hence Rachel and I have kind of adopted the Pope as a kind of defacto moral spiritual leader to fill the vacuum we have in protestantism (excepting Mark Driscoll of course!!!), and we pray for God to uphold and strengthen his leadership of the Christian world.

It's not just us BTW -- I've got a (evangelical protestant) Christian friend in the US with whom I correspond, and 6 months ago when I asked him which presidential candidate he preferred (out of Hillary, Obama and McCain). He said that he had major problems with all 3 of them, and the world leader who most closely aligns with his point of view on everything -- is the Pope. (Unfortunately the pope wasn't running for election :-))

I have several friends, Lutheran Pastors who have converted to Catholicism in recent years, actually one just before Christmas, partly over the issue of authority but also over the issue of confessional integrity.

Can you please explain David what oyu mean by "authority" and "confessional integrity"?
How did these guys cope with stuff like Mary and the Mass?

in Christ
Jereth

[David Palmer]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Hi Jereth,

Re Mary and the Mass

Lutheran doctrine re real presence of body and blood of Christ not all that far from transubstantiation. Not sure about Mary, will have to ask them if they affirm she remained a virgin as per RC doctrine.

Re authority and confessional integrity.

My two ex Lutheran friends were both deeply conservative (confessionally bound) who began to despair over liberalising trends in the Lutheran church, particular over the vote for admitting women as Pastors (not happened but close vote). They saw arguments being advanced that sought to reinterpret Scripture, that held their confessional documents to be of little account, and this raised for them the issue of authority in the church, and they came to see Rome, certainly assisted by conservatism/fidelity to Scripture and tradition of JPII and current Pope as very attractive.

Personally I would find it very difficult being in a theologically mixed denomination which is why I, ex Sydney Anglican over 30 years ago ended up Presbyterian. However I hasten to add I have nothing but admiration for evangelicals who seek to turn their church around as with Melbourne Diocese, and based on what has happened in the Presbyterian Church over the past 30 years, it can happen, though I hasten to add we have features that fellow evangelicals in other churches wouldn’t care for, and sometimes we don’t care for either.

The presenting issue that led my ex Melbourne Vicar friend out of Anglicanism into Orthodoxy was also the ordination of women. It is sometimes forgotten by proponents of women’s ordination that opponents to women’s ordination can have deeply held conscientious objection based on theology and the practice of the Church over 500, 2,000 years and they cannot not be dismissed simply as out of touch, misogynist, sexist or whatever. Anyway, I don’t wish to get the hares up and running over that one. We Presbyterians made our decision 15 years ago in the other direction, it was costly, we lost quite a few people over it, but it simply isn’t an issue of division for us today and hasn’t been for at least 10 years.

Anyway that’s my thought for the day.

God bless and keep your chin up

David

 

From: Jereth (via Nabble) [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 7:20 PM
To: David Palmer
Subject: Re: Charles Simeon Takes on John Wesley (sort of)

 

Greetings David,

David Palmer wrote:

You say in jest (I think!),

"my wife and I watched a TV documentary the other week about the life of Pope Benedict, and commented to each other how much we wished we could convert to the Catholic religion (if only they got rid of that Mary stuff and a few other dodgy things ) - at times we felt we had a lot more common ground with the Pope than with Rowan Williams and many other of the Anglican leaders out there..."

Not entirely in jest, mate. The doctrinal faults of Catholicism -- Mary, the re-sacrificing of Christ in the mass, faith+works, etc. -- certainly make our conversion to Catholicism very very unlikely.

However, we have many a time had a genuine heart-felt admiration for and envy of Roman Catholicism, and the 2 popes who have reigned in our lifetime. Unlike the Protestant churches, who keep giving ground to modern culture and ideology, Catholicism seems incredibly resistant to liberalisation -- they simply refuse to budge from historic doctrinal positions. They don't care if that makes them unpopular or an object of popular scorn -- faithfulness to orthodoxy (and to God) matters much more to them. We admire, for instance, how the Catholic church keeps giving the finger to the pro-death lobby and gay lobby no matter what the cultural pressure -- where others like the Anglicans and Uniting Church simply cave in. Yet Catholicism also cares for all the important global issues like war & peace, the poor, and the environment, about which we are also passionate. Hence Rachel and I have kind of adopted the Pope as a kind of defacto moral spiritual leader to fill the vacuum we have in protestantism (excepting Mark Driscoll of course!!!), and we pray for God to uphold and strengthen his leadership of the Christian world.

It's not just us BTW -- I've got a (evangelical protestant) Christian friend in the US with whom I correspond, and 6 months ago when I asked him which presidential candidate he preferred (out of Hillary, Obama and McCain). He said that he had major problems with all 3 of them, and the world leader who most closely aligns with his point of view on everything -- is the Pope. (Unfortunately the pope wasn't running for election :-))

I have several friends, Lutheran Pastors who have converted to Catholicism in recent years, actually one just before Christmas, partly over the issue of authority but also over the issue of confessional integrity.

Can you please explain David what oyu mean by "authority" and "confessional integrity"?
How did these guys cope with stuff like Mary and the Mass?

in Christ
Jereth

---

This email is a reply to your post @ http://n2.nabble.com/Charles-Simeon-Takes-on-John-Wesley-%28sort-of%29-tp2105395p2155672.html
You can reply by email or by visting the link above.

 

[Jereth]

Hi David,

David Palmer wrote:

Re Mary and the Mass

Lutheran doctrine re real presence of body and blood of Christ not all that
far from transubstantiation. Not sure about Mary, will have to ask them if
they affirm she remained a virgin as per RC doctrine.

Re the mass - I was curious more about the idea that the Mass is a re-sacrifice of Jesus on the altar, or so I have been led to believe. Re Mary, I thought the sticking point between protestatism and Catholicism was using her as a Mediator (there's some kind of funny technical term - "coredemtrix?") to get to God, which displaces Jesus as the only mediator.

My two ex Lutheran friends were both deeply conservative (confessionally
bound) who began to despair over liberalising trends in the Lutheran church,
particular over the vote for admitting women as Pastors (not happened but
close vote). They saw arguments being advanced that sought to reinterpret
Scripture, that held their confessional documents to be of little account,
and this raised for them the issue of authority in the church, and they came
to see Rome, certainly assisted by conservatism/fidelity to Scripture and
tradition of JPII and current Pope as very attractive.
...
The presenting issue that led my ex Melbourne Vicar friend out of
Anglicanism into Orthodoxy was also the ordination of women. It is sometimes
forgotten by proponents of women's ordination that opponents to women's
ordination can have deeply held conscientious objection based on theology
and the practice of the Church over 500, 2,000 years and they cannot not be
dismissed simply as out of touch, misogynist, sexist or whatever.

As you no doubt know, ordination-of-women is a controverted issue in Anglicanism as well, and there are some of us who feel the same irritation at the way that proponents go about arguing their case. It is a secondary issue certainly, but that doesn't mean it isn't very important to some of us who --as you put it-- see it as a matter of authority and confessional integrity. We see women's ordination as one of several "wedge" issues (others being annihilationism/universalism, arminianism) that undermines the place of Scripture and tradition in determining doctrine and practice, which inevitably leads churches to become more liberal over time, especially on things like homosexuality.

I can see tha Catholicism and Orthodoxy are attractive because of their no-bullcr@p approach on this issue as well as on all those other things I mentioned... so it doesn't entirely surprise me that some people jump ship to them.

cheers,
Jereth

[David Palmer]

Hi Jereth,

I spoke to one of my ex Lutheran now Catholic friends and he is running a thread on his blog here: http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/.

I'm a bit busy at the moment but I will probably enter that discussion later today or tomorrow.