Quote
Tom said:
Pilgrim

Would I be correct to say then that Wesley is wrong when he said that Arminians like him believed in 'original sin' in the same manner that people like Whitefield did?

If so, then that point is still valid, despite his claim other wise.

Tom
What I tried to do Tom, was point out that the original formulation of the Arminians as to the doctrine of Original Sin; i.e., the noetic effects of the Fall are contrary to the Scriptures and they were at variance with the doctrine as held by nearly all of the churches which came out of the Protestant Reformation. I also said that what remains to be proven is if Wesley was in agreement with the Remonstrance in regard to this doctrine or if he held to something other. What is true, is that Wesley's theological system was logically inconsistent IF he held to the doctrine of Original Sin as it is set forth by the "Canons of Dordtrect". For he adamantly denied the doctrine of sovereign predestination and election.

Now, if he held to the biblical doctrine of Original Sin, then of necessity, one MUST hold to Unconditional Election. For there would be no other possible way that man could even have an interest in Christ apart from regeneration, never mind salvation. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So, why don't you find some valid statements made by Wesley that speak directly to his views on Original Sin and then we will be able to judge whether his doctrine was the same as held by Whitefield. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You have at your disposal a little thing called [Linked Image] . And should you avail yourself of it, surely you can find what you are looking for.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]