My Commentary on George Whitefield, after reading about him online - Wikipedia, etc.

[MyrtleTrees]

George was a powerful revivalist, and converted many to Christ, throughout his life. I'm thankful for all of the great spiritual revivals he generated through his preaching. Just as I am for all the good spiritual revivals that took place in early USA history. If it hadn't been for them, the world might have come to an end by now - due to the amount of wickedness that accumulates with time.
It's interesting that he was a slaveholder. But no doubt, he was a kind one. At that time, it sounds like the black people were better off as slaves, as the culture here - didn't give them the same freedoms as whites, and so it would have been hard for many of them to be able to earn a living just on their own. But of course, I see slavery (being forced to work without the worker choosing to do so) as not being pleasing to God - though I can see how working for room and board is fine (room and board is a kind of "payment" in exchange for work done) as that was done in Old Testament times, too, by people who were in debt.
It's interesting he had great skill as an orator that people found it easy to like and listen to well. He was very expressive.
It's interesting he was Calvinist, but as evangelist - of course, preached with the hope that many would get saved. I also agree with Calvinists, in that I see it as being true that God has foreknowledge of who all will be saved. Though I don't see humans as having that ability.
I can't tell why he didn't agree with the Arminian's teachings on the atonement. Also, I notice that Jonathan Edwards felt he was in error by judging people for not getting converted, and also for requesting people to get converted to Christ immediately. That's what the Wikipedia article I've read - said. I know that Jesus said people are judged already, as soon as they reject the gospel, so if that's what George Whitfield was doing - I see nothing wrong with that. Unless he thought there was no more hope of their getting saved (maybe later) if they rejected his salvation message. I also see nothing wrong with requesting people to get converted as quickly as is possible. John the Baptist did that, and I know Jesus did that too.

 

[Deuteronomy]

Hello @MyrtleTrees, if memory serves, George Whitefield (the Calvinist) and John Wesley (the Arminian) were brothers in Christ and the dearest of friends, even though their soteriological views often differed greatly from one another. I think that we need more of what they had in the church today, as well (and perhaps particularly) out here in online Christendom, where Arminians and Calvinists seldom, if ever, seem to have the kind of respectful and loving relationship that Whitefield and Wesley had for one another as friends and brothers in Christ.

~Deut

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Getting history or a biography from Wikepedia is like asking a dog to sing the Star Spangled Banner.
Wikepedia is a web site where people can post information they want to share. It does not fact check and anyone can contribute.

The website BANNER OF TRUTH has a full bio of this great evangelist.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

Hello @MyrtleTrees, if memory serves, George Whitefield (the Calvinist) and John Wesley (the Arminian) were brothers in Christ and the dearest of friends, even though their soteriological views often differed greatly from one another. I think that we need more of what they had in the church today, as well (and perhaps particularly) out here in online Christendom, where Arminians and Calvinists seldom, if ever, seem to have the kind of respectful and loving relationship that Whitefield and Wesley had for one another as friends and brothers in Christ.

~Deut

Thanks for reminding me of that! That in spite of their theological differences, they had remained good friends!

Yes, I gather that the Arminians and Calvinists often clash with each other. I think this kind of clashing is more common in Bible groups in Facebook. I find this christianchat group to be much more amiable and tolerant towards differing spiritual views in people.

I've noticed that even good preachers I've listened to online in YouTube - sometimes denounced strongly - Arminians or other sects they felt were seriously wrong. They were sincere in denouncing them. But I could tell they might have guessed wrongly about a sect. And I know that all Christian sects started out in great sincerity and with good understandings of the important truths of the gospel. But that all sects have deteriorated with time. So that some of their groups may have good gospel truth - while others of their own kind - may not.

 

[Lanolin]

maybe it was just a matter of class divisions between what was then calvinists and arminians.
When you are born to privelige, you dont give it up so easily and are not aware you had any choice in the matter I suppose. It is so different for those who were in effect, adopted.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

maybe it was just a matter of class divisions between what was then calvinists and arminians.
When you are born to privelige, you dont give it up so easily and are not aware you had any choice in the matter I suppose. It is so different for those who were in effect, adopted.

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Or maybe you mean that those who differed in their beliefs, were that way partly by habit, and through trusting the sect they trusted the most. True - that happens a lot nowadays too, I think - it can make it hard for people to change their views.

 

[throughfaith]

Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

 

[throughfaith]

George was a powerful revivalist, and converted many to Christ, throughout his life. I'm thankful for all of the great spiritual revivals he generated through his preaching. Just as I am for all the good spiritual revivals that took place in early USA history. If it hadn't been for them, the world might have come to an end by now - due to the amount of wickedness that accumulates with time.
It's interesting that he was a slaveholder. But no doubt, he was a kind one. At that time, it sounds like the black people were better off as slaves, as the culture here - didn't give them the same freedoms as whites, and so it would have been hard for many of them to be able to earn a living just on their own. But of course, I see slavery (being forced to work without the worker choosing to do so) as not being pleasing to God - though I can see how working for room and board is fine (room and board is a kind of "payment" in exchange for work done) as that was done in Old Testament times, too, by people who were in debt.
It's interesting he had great skill as an orator that people found it easy to like and listen to well. He was very expressive.
It's interesting he was Calvinist, but as evangelist - of course, preached with the hope that many would get saved. I also agree with Calvinists, in that I see it as being true that God has foreknowledge of who all will be saved. Though I don't see humans as having that ability.
I can't tell why he didn't agree with the Arminian's teachings on the atonement. Also, I notice that Jonathan Edwards felt he was in error by judging people for not getting converted, and also for requesting people to get converted to Christ immediately. That's what the Wikipedia article I've read - said. I know that Jesus said people are judged already, as soon as they reject the gospel, so if that's what George Whitfield was doing - I see nothing wrong with that. Unless he thought there was no more hope of their getting saved (maybe later) if they rejected his salvation message. I also see nothing wrong with requesting people to get converted as quickly as is possible. John the Baptist did that, and I know Jesus did that too.

I see the problems that George Whitfield and John wesley have let behind and that is the systems they furthered that today people are till captivated by . We need to move on from these people. Whilst they may have done some good things ,the systems they encouraged are false .

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

George was a powerful revivalist, and converted many to Christ, throughout his life. I'm thankful for all of the great spiritual revivals he generated through his preaching. Just as I am for all the good spiritual revivals that took place in early USA history. If it hadn't been for them, the world might have come to an end by now - due to the amount of wickedness that accumulates with time.
It's interesting that he was a slaveholder. But no doubt, he was a kind one. At that time, it sounds like the black people were better off as slaves, as the culture here - didn't give them the same freedoms as whites, and so it would have been hard for many of them to be able to earn a living just on their own. But of course, I see slavery (being forced to work without the worker choosing to do so) as not being pleasing to God - though I can see how working for room and board is fine (room and board is a kind of "payment" in exchange for work done) as that was done in Old Testament times, too, by people who were in debt.
It's interesting he had great skill as an orator that people found it easy to like and listen to well. He was very expressive.
It's interesting he was Calvinist, but as evangelist - of course, preached with the hope that many would get saved. I also agree with Calvinists, in that I see it as being true that God has foreknowledge of who all will be saved. Though I don't see humans as having that ability.
I can't tell why he didn't agree with the Arminian's teachings on the atonement. Also, I notice that Jonathan Edwards felt he was in error by judging people for not getting converted, and also for requesting people to get converted to Christ immediately. That's what the Wikipedia article I've read - said. I know that Jesus said people are judged already, as soon as they reject the gospel, so if that's what George Whitfield was doing - I see nothing wrong with that. Unless he thought there was no more hope of their getting saved (maybe later) if they rejected his salvation message. I also see nothing wrong with requesting people to get converted as quickly as is possible. John the Baptist did that, and I know Jesus did that too.

Times and common practice and cultural conditions in no way exempt us from the command of Jesus, to love our neighbors as ourselves. Revivalist ideology of illicit a decision for Jesus may or may not have added to the Kingdom of God. Going down to an alter call and repeating after me, no more saves than doing the hokey pokey. Likely he lead a bunch of people to feel secure in their sins just as he was.
In Paul's letter to Timothy, he lays down some qualifications necessary to hold an office in the church. The character laid down in that passage would disqualify anyone who held another man captive against his will and forced him into submission and labour, and/or financially supports the evil of the institution that thereby subjected men to bound servitude. The wicked violence of such a trade against the image of God is untenable to anyone who indeed does love God.
I pray that this witfield repented of this evil and began to actually believe. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance in which one must engage to from ones mouth say, let Jesus set you free from bondage to Satan, while keeping men bound in servitude to one's self. This is hypocrisy of horrific proportion, which leaves one to doubt the nature of such a man's intentions.
I don't know how one can be a Calvinists and a revivalist at the same time, being that the corner stone of revivalism is decision. But it wouldn't be surprising that such a paradoxical man may make one claim while practicing another. It's not hard to see the fruit of Calvin's ideas, the history of Geneva, and the tyrannical theocracy wrought by His teachings is testimony. So if you point to numbers of this witfield's followers, I point to Osteen, Copeland, Russlle, Smith, yes even the Pope. The number of eloquent orators through out human history has proven one little other than, Satan has a great command of language, and that humans will flock to anyone who can drip honey in their ears.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

Times and common practice and cultural conditions in no way exempt us from the command of Jesus, to love our neighbors as ourselves. Revivalist ideology of illicit a decision for Jesus may or may not have added to the Kingdom of God. Going down to an alter call and repeating after me, no more saves than doing the hokey pokey. Likely he lead a bunch of people to feel secure in their sins just as he was.
In Paul's letter to Timothy, he lays down some qualifications necessary to hold an office in the church. The character laid down in that passage would disqualify anyone who held another man captive against his will and forced him into submission and labour, and/or financially supports the evil of the institution that thereby subjected men to bound servitude. The wicked violence of such a trade against the image of God is untenable to anyone who indeed does love God.
I pray that this witfield repented of this evil and began to actually believe. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance in which one must engage to from ones mouth say, let Jesus set you free from bondage to Satan, while keeping men bound in servitude to one's self. This is hypocrisy of horrific proportion, which leaves one to doubt the nature of such a man's intentions.
I don't know how one can be a Calvinists and a revivalist at the same time, being that the corner stone of revivalism is decision. But it wouldn't be surprising that such a paradoxical man may make one claim while practicing another. It's not hard to see the fruit of Calvin's ideas, the history of Geneva, and the tyrannical theocracy wrought by His teachings is testimony. So if you point to numbers of this witfield's followers, I point to Osteen, Copeland, Russlle, Smith, yes even the Pope. The number of eloquent orators through out
human history has proven one little other than, Satan has a great command of language, and that humans will flock to anyone who can drip honey in their ears.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

True - if Whitefield was guilty of pronouncing people "saved" just by saying the "sinner's prayer" - he would be guilty of great sin in doing so. But I see no evidence that this was the case. I think he was just inviting people to make the decision to accept Jesus as their Saviour and Lord - and trying to get them to arrive at that decision as soon as they could make themselves do so. Jesus and others urged people to be quick in their reception of the gospel, too, in the Bible.

Matt 10:14-15

14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
KJV

Luke 13:4-5

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
KJV

People don't know when they are going to die. It happens very suddenly sometimes. This is why it is best to get saved as soon as is possible. Some might get saved later - but it's safer to get saved the earliest as is possible.

Yes, there are many false prophets in modern times, who preach from the Bible but who personally deny the deity of Jesus - I've heard about them - Joel Osteen is one such person. One needs to be wary and watchful, since there are false prophets around. And to trust God's Word above all else.

I haven't seen that Calvinists have always not done well in evangelizing. Some of them have done very well in evangelizing and helping to save souls through getting them to receive the gospel Like Spurgeon, etc. There may be some Calvinists who do poorly in evangelization - true - but I've seen through examination of stories of evangelists who were Calvinists - that though some did poorly in this - others did very well.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

I see the problems that George Whitfield and John wesley have let behind and that is the systems they furthered that today people are till captivated by . We need to move on from these people. Whilst they may have done some good things ,the systems they encouraged are false .

 

[MyrtleTrees]

There has been no sect that has been completely free of doctrinal errors, I believe. But the evangelists throughout history who were true Christians - always bore fruit for God through their preaching ministries, and it always had a lasting, good effect, I believe. God's Word teaches, that if a person is sincerely in Christi, his life can't help but bear fruit unto God, since God says so and because God helps them in their ministries - to be effective and to accomplish things for Him in this life.

Furthermore, all of the church sects have had groups branching off from them with time, and many of these were deteriorations to their original purity of the gospel message and truth of it. Plus areas where the gospel has originally been greatly affected by the gospel in a good way - often go through moral changes with time. The present time is said to be a time when Christianity is greatly decreased in power, within the USA, I know, compared to earlier times in the USA. I hear that lots. So that also has to have a deteriorating affect on the preaching of the gospel, in many cases, too - I'm sure. Since there gets to be so there's fewer and fewer who are willing to preach the pure gospel, without "watering it down" - in order to avoid the danger of displeasing their hearers. I hear that lots, too.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

I haven't seen that to be the case. They both vary in their doctrines. Some I see as being correct and according to what the Bible says, and others, I see as not being correct. But I believe the are are true Christians among both sects, and that this is true of most Protestant sects. I think this adage I've heard is good - something like this: "A person can be in a church, but that isn't what saves him. What saves people is if they sincerely accept Jesus as Lord and Savior of their life."

 

[throughfaith]

I haven't seen that to be the case. They both vary in their doctrines. Some I see as being correct and according to what the Bible says, and others, I see as not being correct. But I believe the are are true Christians among both sects, and that this is true of most Protestant sects. I think this adage I've heard is good - something like this: "A person can be in a church, but that isn't what saves him. What saves people is if they sincerely accept Jesus as Lord and Savior of their life."

I'm not referring to individuals , but to the theology. Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

 

[Grandpa]

I'm not referring to individuals , but to the theology. Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.


There's no reason to refute Arminianism AND Calvinism unless you just don't understand Salvation.

 

[throughfaith]

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.


There's no reason to refute Arminianism AND Calvinism unless you just don't understand Salvation.

Thank you . You just made my point .

 

[throughfaith]

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.


There's no reason to refute Arminianism AND Calvinism unless you just don't understand Salvation.

The bible still stands without Dutch reformed theology ,that starts with the faulty ' Total inability '

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I

There's really only 3 camps.

Calvinism.

Arminianism.

Confused.


There's no reason to refute Arminianism AND Calvinism unless you just don't understand Salvation.

I think they didn't understand salvation, and confused man henceforth with their dogma.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

True - if Whitefield was guilty of pronouncing people "saved" just by saying the "sinner's prayer" - he would be guilty of great sin in doing so. But I see no evidence that this was the case. I think he was just inviting people to make the decision to accept Jesus as their Saviour and Lord - and trying to get them to arrive at that decision as soon as they could make themselves do so. Jesus and others urged people to be quick in their reception of the gospel, too, in the Bible.

Matt 10:14-15

14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
KJV

Luke 13:4-5

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
KJV

People don't know when they are going to die. It happens very suddenly sometimes. This is why it is best to get saved as soon as is possible. Some might get saved later - but it's safer to get saved the earliest as is possible.

Yes, there are many false prophets in modern times, who preach from the Bible but who personally deny the deity of Jesus - I've heard about them - Joel Osteen is one such person. One needs to be wary and watchful, since there are false prophets around. And to trust God's Word above all else.

I haven't seen that Calvinists have always not done well in evangelizing. Some of them have done very well in evangelizing and helping to save souls through getting them to receive the gospel Like Spurgeon, etc. There may be some Calvinists who do poorly in evangelization - true - but I've seen through examination of stories of evangelists who were Calvinists - that though some did poorly in this - others did very well.

The problem with this is that you can't get saved. You can only believe. You can only trust Jesus for his promise to us, and be baptized which is the seal of his promise, the binding of us by the Holy Spirit to Christ in his death. Salvation is a gift, not obtained, but given by Jesus, there is no decision or contract signing, or magic incantation, only believing.