Showing posts with label John Wesley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Wesley. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 01, 2018

The haunting of old Epworth rectory

Apparitional evidence is a neglected line of evidence in contemporary Christian apologetics. Although it doesn't necessarily prove the Christian faith directly, it debunks naturalism. Moreover, some kinds of apparitions intersect with Christian theology. 

A striking example involves the Wesley clan, made retroactively famous by John and Charles Wesley. When their father pastored a church in Epworth, the parsonage was assailed by poltergeist activity. This is recorded in Adam Clarke's, Memoirs of the Wesley Family. Clarke quotes primary source documents from the parents and siblings of John and Charles. So we have multiple independent attestation. 

In theory, some of the auditory phenomena might be naturally explicable if attributed to malicious neighbors pranking the Wesleys. However, there's also physical (visual, tactile) phenomena inside the parsonage, witnessed by members of the household. These are firsthand reports, by multiple observers: 

I know not whether it was in the morning after Sunday the 23d, when about seven my daughter Emily called her mother into the nursery, and told her she might now hear the noises there. She went in, and heard it at the bedstead, then under the bed, then at the head of it. She knocked, and it answered her. She looked under the bed, and thought something ran from thence, but could not well tell of what shape, but thought it most like a badger.

Several nights the latch of our lodging-chamber would be lifted up very often, when all were in bed. One night, when the noise was great in the kitchen, and on a deal partition, and the door in the yard, the latch whereof was often lifted up, my daughter Emilia went and held it fast on the inside : but it was still lifted up, and the door pushed violently against her, though nothing was to be seen on the outside. 

After nine, Robert Brown sitting alone by the fire in the back kitchen, something came out of the copper hole like a rabbit, but less, and turned round five times very swiftly. Its ears lay flat upon its neck, and its little scut stood straight up. He ran after it with the tongs in his hands; but when he could find nothing, he was frighted, and went to the maid in the parlour. 

The next evening between five and six o'clock my sister Molly, then about twenty years of age, sitting' in the dining room, reading, heard as if it were the door that led into the hall open, and a person walking in, that seemed to have on a silk night-gown, rustling and trailing along. It seemed to walk round her, then to the door, then round again: but she could see nothing. She thought," it signifies nothing to run away; for whatever it is, it can run faster than me." So she rose, put her book under her arm, and walked slowly away.

In the morning she told this to my eldest sister, who told her, "You know, I believe none of these things. Pray let me take away the candle tonight, and I will find out the trick." She accordingly took my sister Hetty's place; and had no sooner taken away the candle, than she heard a noise below. She hastened down stairs to the hall, where the noise was. But it was then in the kitchen. She ran into the kitchen, where it was drumming on the inside of the screen. When she went round it was drumming on the outside, and so always on the side opposite to her. Then she heard a knocking at the back kitchen door. She ran to it; unlocked it softly; and when the knocking was repeated, suddenly opened it: but nothing was to be seen. As soon as she had shut it, the knocking began again. She opened it again, but could see nothing: when she went to shut the door, it was violently thrust against her; she let it fly open, but nothing appeared. She went again to shut it, and it was again thrust against her.

Till this time, my father had never heard the least disturbances in his study. But the next evening, as he attempted to go into his study, (of which none had any key but himself,) when he opened the door, it was thrust back with such violence, as had like to have thrown him down.

But my sister Hetty, who sits always to wait on my father going to bed, was still sitting on the lowest step on the garret stairs, the door being shut at her back, when soon after there came down the stairs behind her something like a man, in a loose nightgown trailing after him, which made her fly rather than run to me in the nursery. 

If you would know my opinion of the reason of this, I shall briefly tell you. I believe it to be witchcraft, for these reasons : About a year since, there was a disturbance at a town near us, that was undoubtedly witches ; and if so near, why may they not reach us ? Then my father had for several Sundays before its coming preached warmly against consulting those that are called cunning men, which our people are given to ; and it had a particular spite at my father. 

Beside, something was thrice seen. The first time by my mother, under my sister's bed, like a badger, only without any head that was discernible. The same creature was sat by the dining room fire one evening; when our man went into the room, it run by him, through the hall under the stairs. He followed with a candle, and searched, but it was departed. The last time he saw it in the kitchen, like a white rabbit, which seems likely to be some witch...

One thing I believe you do not know, that is, last Sunday, to my father's no small amazement, his trencher [wooden plate] danced upon the table a pretty while, without any body's stirring the table. 

When I was there, the windows and doors began to jar, and ring exceedingly…Before I was out of the room, the latch of the back kitchen door was lifted up many times. I opened the door and looked out, but could see nobody. I tried to shut the door, but it was thrust against me, and I could feel the latch, which I held in my hand, moving upward at the same time. I looked out again: but finding it was labour lost, clapped the door to, and locked it. Immediately the latch was moved strongly up and down: but I left it, and went up.

The bed on which my sister Nancy sat was lifted up with her on it. She leapt down and said, "for surely old Jeffrey would not run away with her." However, they persuaded her to sit down again, which she had scarce done, when it was again lifted up several times successively a considerable height, upon which she left her seat, and would not be prevailed upon to sit there any more. 

Saturday, November 30, 2013

"He has ravished my heart"


Guilherme AdrianodrP8vlvSl_8.gifJerry Walls
November 27 at 8:01pm ·
  • Jerry, brother, what do you think of this one liner my friends and I just came up with:

  • Hey, Calvinists, if the bride doesn't say "I do", it's rape.

https://www.facebook.com/JerryLWalls/posts/10152144328500676

Doesn't that make you yearn to fellowship with Arminians? Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. "Your God is a rapist!" is part of the Arminian lexicon when responding to Calvinists, along with other gems like "Your God is worse than Hitler," "Your God is worse than Satan," "Your God would torture little kids for the fun of it."

Of course, in the next breath, Arminians assure us that we're brothers. Uh-huh.

What are we to make of this comparison? 

i) Consider how John Wesley describes the grace of God:

"He has ravished my heart." 
"Her soul was so ravished with his love." 
John Wesley's Journal

To my knowledge, "ravish" is literally an archaic synonym for rape. In poetic usage, it plays on the sexually coercive connotations, but acquires the figurative sense of being overwhelmed with passion. It's striking that Wesley, a paradigmatic Arminian, resorts to a refined rape metaphor to describe the Arminian concept of grace. 

Notice, this isn't me, a Calvinist, making that comparison. This is straight from the lips of a leading Arminian. So maybe Arminians need to drop the demagogic rhetoric, lest it boomerang. 

ii) Why is "rape" the first thing some Arminians think of when they hear "irresistible grace." If this were a free association test, that would tell you more about what's on the mind of the Arminian than anything about Calvinism. Unintentionally revealing. 

Although rape is forcible, most force isn't rape. Most force is nonsexual. So why is "rape" what comes to mind? Have they been watching bondage pornography?

iii) Why cast the example in terms of the "bride"? Why not the groom? Maybe because that doesn't have the same rhetorical resonance?

If Arminians insist on sexual metaphors, a more accurate metaphor would be seduction, where one gives into temptation because the seducer or seductress is irresistibly attractive. 

iv) In Calvinism, the "bride" (or groom) does says "yes." 

v) The comparison is confused at yet another level. It fails to distinguish between forcing love onto someone and forcing love out of someone. It's quite possible for love to be forcible.

Take a child who's kidnapped at the age of 2. He is found at the age of 4. By that time, the child has become emotionally attached to his abductor. The child is initially resistant to being separated from his abductor and returned to his parents. But in the long run, it's for the child's good. 

Likewise, some kidnapping victims allegedly suffer from Stockholm syndrome. The captive bonds with the captor. Take the oft-cited case of Patty Hearst. Ironically, the captive resists being freed. 

Other examples include cults, where young, impressionable initiates with the cult-leader. It takes an intervention to pry them away. 

I remember watching a news story years ago about an American woman who foolishly married a Muslim. They had a daughter by each other. Then, as a foreign national, he returned to Saudi Arabia with their daughter. At great risk to herself, the mother went to Saudi Arabia to get her daughter back. She had to seize her daughter off the street. Her daughter was initially resistant. Once back in the U.S., she reverted to a normal American mother/daughter relationship. 

In each case, forcible action is required to restore the balance. Do Arminians think these examples are equivalent to rape? If you rescue someone against their will, is that "rape"? 

UPDATE:

Here's an image capture of the Facebook question:


  • Jerry, brother, what do you think of this one liner my friends and I just came up with:

    Hey, Calvinists, if the bride doesn't say "I do", it's rape.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Like father, like son


4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother (1 Jn 3:4-10).
i) 1 Jn 3:9 has often puzzled commentators and theologians. Wesleyan Arminians and other Christians in the holiness tradition use this as a prooftext for sinless perfection. But one difficulty with that interpretation is that because they can't live up to sunlessness, they redefine sunlessness down to their own level. Sinless perfection becomes its antithesis: antinomianism. If a Christian can't sin, then nothing a Christian does is sinful.  
ii) This interpretation is also in tension with 1 Jn 1:7-10.
iii) More recently, some scholars harmonize the passages by appealing to verbal aspect theory. They think the present tense verb denotes continuous action. Persistent or habitual sin, in contrast to occasional sin. A Christian's life isn't "characterized" by sin.  
However, that's extracting too much theology from a grammatical fine-point. I think it's best to interpret John's statement in light of the surrounding context and his theological framework.
iv) John is probably framing the contrast in somewhat hyperbolic terms for emphasis. 
v) I think John is describing what believers and unbelievers are in principle. If you carry that orientation to its logical conclusion. Unbelievers take after the devil while believers take after God. At present, it isn't that cut-and-dried, but believers and unbelievers are animated by opposing tendencies. Even though they haven't arrived at their respective destinations, you can infer the destination by the general direction in which they are traveling. It's just a matter of time. 
vi) And this dovetails with John's inaugurated eschatology, where the future breaks into the present. The "world" is passing away. The "spirit of the Antichrist" is already here, even thought the Antichrist remains future. So even though the division has yet to be finalized, it's latent in the current bias. 
vii) John is shadowboxing with his theological opponents: the heretical schismatics. That's his immediate target. Not just sinners in general, but sinners who have seen the light, only to recoil and retreat into the shadows (cf. Jn 3:19-20). 
viii) Although this is a bad prooftext for perfectionism, it's a good prooftext for perseverance. John uses a blunt seminal metaphor. Christians must take after the God who spiritually fathered them, for his life-principle remains in them. 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The fate of unbaptized infants

This is a continuation of a debate I had on the Amazon discussion board, occasioned by JD Hall’s book for kids:

Part 1 is here:



Nelson Banuchi says:

Now the kid will have nightmaresnot being chosen and being so bad, not even God wanted him.

keystone says:
Actually, the fear that God won't choose someone because they are too bad dovetails with the classic Arminian doctrine of conditional election, whereas unconditional election isn't based on how good or bad the sinner is. So thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Conditional election would give a kid nightmares.

keystone says:
Nelson Banuchi says:

"That's the point of 'unconditional election'. It has nothing to do with merit or demerit."

Which directly contradicts what you previously said: "Now the kid will have nightmaresnot being chosen and being so bad, not even God wanted him."

"Conditonal election would not give nightmares for the Arminian can truthfully tell the child God loves him..."

But according to Arminianism, God's love doesn't prevent anyone from going to hell.

"...and will save him; all he need do is trust Christ."

But according to Arminianism (especially Wesleyan Arminianism), you can trust in Christ, be saved, then lose your salvation.

"If the Calvinist were honest..."

You're very fond of that phrase. But you should start learning how to be an honest Arminian before you point fingers. Try to put a damper on your spiritual pride and take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror. You're just another Arminian partisan.

keystone says:
Nelson Banuchi says:

"1. Well, the contradiction is not due on my part but to theological double-think of Calvinism."

You said that according to reprobation, God might not choose to save someone because they were too bad to be saved. Demonstrate how that's an implication of (or even consistent with) reprobation.

"2. Arminian theology does not prevent anyone from damnation. Again, that comment shows you have no correct understanding of Arminian theology."

Quote where I said what you impute to me.

"On the other hand, God does prevents many from going to heaven and by creating them to choose them, without any reference to deserts, for hell."

Actually, the Arminian God does prevent many from going to heaven. If we have the libertarian freedom to do otherwise, then there's a possible world where I choose Christ and go to heaven as well as a possible world where I reject Christ and go to hell. That means if someone goes to hell in the actual world, God prevented him from going to heaven by creating the possible world where he is hellbound rather than the possible world where he is heavenbound.

"As far as losing salvation (a) some Arminians believe in 'eternal security';"

I specified Wesleyan Arminians. You're not paying attention.

"(b) Calvin (in his Institutes) taught that God gives some a temporary faith or grace in order to take it away and damn them in the end and there would be no outward difference between the counterfeit believer and the genuine believer (which seems to make it hard to figure out if you're one or the other)."

Your argument is fallacious. Figuring out which you are wouldn't depend on "outward" differences, but inward differences. The unregenerate don't have the same gracious experience as the regenerate.

keystone says:
Nelson Banuchi says:

"1. I didn't argue it was. I only mentioned that if there is a contradiction, it is on the Calvinist side as I made my comment based on Calvinist presuppositions. Calvinism teaches both that God elected to eternal damnation whomsoever he chose to damn without any consideration of their moral character; and, simultaneously, Calvinists assert that those whom God damned deserved it. Since I do not espouse Calvinism, I am not required to explain the contradiction."

You confuse unconditional election with reprobation. The fact that election is unconditional does not entail that reprobation is unconditional. Reprobation is unconditional in the qualified sense that if sin was a sufficient condition of reprobation, then everyone would be damned. However, sin is a necessary condition of damnation.

"God's love does not prevent the person who receives his love demonstrated on the Cross through faith from salvation; salvation is conditional. In Arminianism, if one goes to hell, it is by his own choice."

Which paraphrases what I said. Therefore, you've failed to demonstrate that I misrepresented Arminianism.

What makes you think conditional salvation is more loving than unconditional election?

"Not interested in philosophical speculations re: possible worlds so, respectfully, here you're talking to the wall. Show in the Bible where Arminian theology is flawed, and then we can discuss it. And, again, respectfully, you demonstrate a misunderstanding what Arminian theology is."

This is how Jerry Walls defines the Arminian concept of freewill:

"As he makes the choice, the agent has the power to choose A and the power to choose not-A."

That means there's a possible world (A) in which the individual accepts Jesus as well as another possible world (not-A) in which the individual rejects Christ.

Yet the Arminian God only creates one of those possible worlds. And in many cases, he creates the world in which the individual rejected Christ rather than the alternative world in which the individual accepted Christ.

Therefore, the Arminian God prevents countless individuals from ever being saved-or even saveable.

That's a logical consequence of your theological system.

"In any case, again, it is Calvinism that teaches God prevents many, many people from being saved because it was God's choice to eternally damn many, many people; and that is the ultimate reason for the damnation of men and not notions of demerit."

And the Arminian God prevents many, many people from being saved because it was his choice to create the timeline in which they reject Christ rather than the timeline in which they accept Christ.

You need to learn how to think through the ramifications of your own position, instead of adopting a purely reactionary stance.

"You did not `specify Wesleyans.'"

To the contrary, I did just that. I said "especially Wesleyan Arminians."

And if you're going to defend eternal security, you need to explain why we must have libertarian freedom to accept the faith, but not have libertarian freedom to stay in the faith. How is that not an artificial bifurcation?

"As I understand the reading, that there is practically no outward difference was Calvin's point (regardless of how it is doctrinally explained)."

You keep missing the point. Outward differences are irrelevant. The salient distinction involves internal differences (e.g. whether or not the individual is in a state of grace).

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Whitefield's woes

From Arnold Dallimore:
[W]hile [George] Whitefield was at Charleston, Commissary Garden confronted him with a copy of Wesley's sermon "Against Predestination." This was Whitefield's first realization that, contrary to his expressed desire, Wesley was circulating this divisive document, and he could see that the day was approaching when it would be necessary for him to write a reply.

And further disappointment awaiting him: he received an answer to his proposal of marriage. He merely tells us, "I find from Blendon letters that Miss E[lizabeth] D[elamotte] is in a seeking state only." Apparently either the parents or Elizabeth had written to say that she was not a sufficiently mature Christian to undergo all the trials he had listed. But the Delamottes, with the rest of the Fetter Lane Society, had become Moravians and were now opposed to the Wesleys, and we must suppose to some degree to Whitefield too. Moreover, Elizabeth was now keeping company with another young man, William Holland, the one spoken of as reading from Luther on the evening John Wesley was converted, and within five months Elizabeth and Holland were married. Our hearts go out to Whitefield in this further disappointment, and we feel for him as following his mention of the "Blendon letters" he says, "Just now I have been weeping, and much carried out before the Lord."

In this sense of deep disappointment he returned to Bethesda.

After a few days spent in superintending the work of the Orphan House, Whitefield set out on his Fall Tour -- that of New England. He had been invited by the governor and the secretary of Massachusetts, by a number of laymen, and by several ministers.

And now, as always, Boston people thronged to hear him. Civic officials of today would not allow such crowding as was practiced under Whitefield's ministry in the churches. Time after time humanity pressed into the pews, filled the aisles and the stairways, and covered the pulpit area. But in a congregation that had gathered ahead of time at the New South Church and was waiting for Whitefield to arrive, someone broke a board to form a makeshift seat, and a cry went up that the gallery was falling. Immediately the place was in a panic as people rushed to get to the doors, and many fell and were trampled upon. Some even threw themselves out of the windows. Five were killed and several seriously injured.

Whitefield was disturbed by the tragedy . . .
And:
My Dear, Dear Brethren,

. . . Why did you throw out that bone of contention? Why did you print that sermon against predestination? . . .

Do you not think, my dear brethren, that I must be as much concerned for truth, or what I think truth, as you? God is my judge. I always was, and I hope I always shall be, desirous that you may be preferred before me. But I must preach the Gospel of Christ, and this I cannot now do without speaking about election. . . .

O my dear brethren, my heart almost bleeds within me! Methinks I would be willing to tarry here on the waters forever, rather than come to England to oppose you.


Whitefield to John and Charles Wesley, from aboard ship, as it approached England March 1741