In “Predestination Calmly Considered” Wesley focuses on Scripture in his arguments, citing example after example to support his points. Interestingly, several times Wesley seems to say that he might not even fully understand how a certain idea is true, but he believes it because it is spoken clearly in Scripture. Despite this admission, Wesley does make quite a detailed effort to support his doctrine with reason. Another important factor of Wesley’s work is that he appeals to the character of God. He does this first by declaring that God’s sovereignty cannot ever supersede God’s justice (which he believes must follow when one accepts predestination), and later describing how God’s love is another chief characteristic. In general, Wesley seems to be coming from a pastoral position.
To me, Wesley stood in stark contrast to Edwards who does not cite any Scripture, but rather uses some sort of system in making his argument, beginning by defining the words and ideas he will use, and then basing his arguments on these definitions and following them out to their (logical?) conclusions. I had trouble following or agreeing with a few of his points, but in general it seems to be a quite different approach to the issue than Wesley. Edwards generally seems to be coming from a philosophical or academic perspective, rather than Wesley’s pastoral role.
So my question is, what led these two writers to use such different styles to make their arguments, and how were they received based on this? I also found it amusing that Wesley, after writing so passionately and in-depth on the dangers and evil of predestination, ends with an appeal to unity, with “our agreement is greater than our difference.”
No comments:
Post a Comment