Why do you believe the Bible is the word of God?

[gtsecc]

?

[DeoJuvante]

Isn't the Word of God Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos?

[TomUK]

Isn't the Word of God Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos?

Absolutely. Scripture is inspired by God. Christ is the word.

[gtsecc]

I didn't capitalise word.
Now I have to rephrase this.

[TomUK]

I didn't capitalise word.
Now I have to rephrase this.

Does it make a difference?

[gtsecc]

Does it make a difference?
Sure, the Word of God is Christ.
The word of God is the Bible.

[TomUK]

Does the bible ever claim that it is the word of God?

If anything the bible says the opposite - that the word of Goc cannot be contained or chained down.

[PaladinValer]

Actually, the Bible, as Polycarp1 often mention, is the "words" of God.

I personally am beginning to call the Bible "God's revelation based on the human-Divine relationship" or simply "God's revelation" for short.

[julian the apostate]

the bible is a book about God not a book by God

the inspiration is also contained in the fact that the Spirit of God hovers over the words as he did upon the newly created waters

the bible is sacramental, not a self help manual or a science text book or the actual dictated words of God

[Wiffey]

the bible is a book about God not a book by God

the inspiration is also contained in the fact that the Spirit of God hovers over the words as he did upon the newly created waters

the bible is sacramental, not a self help manual or a science text book or the actual dictated words of God

Well put!

[AngCath]

I believe that the Bible is a collection of books, letters, and poetry inspired by the Holy Spirit and written about God's revelation of Himself to His people.

[karen freeinchristman]

the bible is a book about God not a book by God

the inspiration is also contained in the fact that the Spirit of God hovers over the words as he did upon the newly created waters

the bible is sacramental, not a self help manual or a science text book or the actual dictated words of God


:amen:

[gtsecc]

I see folks saying WHAT it is, but not so much WHY it is.

[SirTimothy]

Good question. Because... lemme grab my '79 BCP, I think it put it rather well... *sticks a baptist hymnal underneath his laptop in place of the '79 BCP*

Catechism:

Q: Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A: We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.

[karen freeinchristman]

Q: Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A: We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.

:thumbsup:

[AngCath]

good old BCP to the rescue!

[PaladinValer]

I agree that the Bible is a sacramental as well; just like rosaries :)

I also agree with SirTimothy's reply, of course :)

[gtsecc]

That is almost a tautology.

What I am getting at is that somewhere along the line you are going to identify a people and take their word for it.
That people is some sort of undivided church (Rome and the East speaking with one voice).

[karen freeinchristman]

What I am getting at is that somewhere along the line you are going to identify a people and take their word for it.
That people is some sort of undivided church (Rome and the East speaking with one voice).

This may be true for you, gtsecc, but it is not true for everyone. When I came to own a real faith in Christ, it was through reading Scripture, and that Scripture was revealed to me as truth (by the Holy Spirit), without any knowledge of the undivided church, or tradition, or early church fathers, on my part. You may argue about 'How do you know it was the Holy Spirit' etc... but when the scales are lifted from a person's eyes, they know it, believe me.

[gtsecc]

This may be true for you, gtsecc, but it is not true for everyone. When I came to own a real faith in Christ, it was through reading Scripture, and that Scripture was revealed to me as truth (by the Holy Spirit), without any knowledge of the undivided church, or tradition, or early church fathers, on my part. You may argue about 'How do you know it was the Holy Spirit' etc... but when the scales are lifted from a person's eyes, they know it, believe me.
Let me ask this in as none offensive a way as I can pray you take it:
How does your experience differ from someone who says the same thing about reading the Koran?

[ContraMundum]

The Holy Spirit's work within us shows us what to believe- He works faith in us- this is the case with the ressurection, the atonement, the incarnation, and the Bible. No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. No one could ever believe any article of our religion without His work in us.

Funny how rarely one includes God in their answers, and yet, it is all His work.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit led me to believe that. I can't possibly think of any other reasonable answer. When I first read the Bible no one told me about it, what it was, what it meant, and yet, after only a few sentences, I understood that this was no mere book. The same thing is heard from missionaries who take Bibles to heathens. They don't have to tell anyone the Bible is the Word of God, it just happens. Cool, eh? God is in charge.

For example, Muslims tell me the Koran is the word of God. I read it and thought it was pretty useless. Likewise the Book of Mormon. Lots of people tell me that "this is the word of God" about anything they consider holy writ. Yet, I don't believe it. It seems God gives an annointing to believe (1 Jn 2) Even the church could claim the Bible is the Word of God, but without His annointing, it would be as baseless a claim as any other group out there in the religious smorgasbord.

I know this all sounds subjective and so forth, but really, isn't the Christian Faith proven in the heart and not the mind?

[AngCath]

Let me ask this in as none offensive a way as I can pray you take it:
How does your experience differ from someone who says the same thing about reading the Koran?

The Holy Spirit is involved with Scripture not the Koran.

[karen freeinchristman]

How does your experience differ from someone who says the same thing about reading the Koran?

I would have to be honest and say that I don't know the answer to this one.

[gtsecc]

The Holy Spirit is involved with Scripture not the Koran.I am not sure any Muslim would agree with that.
There must be a way for an outsider to distinguish our (CHristian and Muslim) claims.

[karen freeinchristman]

I am not sure any Muslim would agree with that.
There must be a way for an outsider to distinguish our (CHristian and Muslim) claims.

But there's no way you can claim that Holy Tradition is the 'way' to distinguish, surely?

[IowaLutheran]

What I am getting at is that somewhere along the line you are going to identify a people and take their word for it.
That people is some sort of undivided church (Rome and the East speaking with one voice).



This may be true for you, gtsecc, but it is not true for everyone. When I came to own a real faith in Christ, it was through reading Scripture, and that Scripture was revealed to me as truth (by the Holy Spirit), without any knowledge of the undivided church, or tradition, or early church fathers, on my part. You may argue about 'How do you know it was the Holy Spirit' etc... but when the scales are lifted from a person's eyes, they know it, believe me.

I think the point is that we, some 1700 years later, are accepting that the holy spirit guided what gtsecc calls the "undivided church, tradition, and the early church fathers" when they decided what is scripture and what is not. If it weren't for the Holy Spirit working through Christians for the past 2,000 years, there would be no Scripture for the Holy Spirit to lead us to.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think the point is that we, some 1700 years later, are accepting that the holy spirit guided what gtsecc calls the "undivided church, tradition, and the early church fathers" when they decided what is scripture and what is not. If it weren't for the Holy Spirit working through Christians for the past 2,000 years, there would be no Scripture for the Holy Spirit to lead us to.

yeah, we know this is gtsecc's point, we knew it from the beginning of this thread. But that isn't the same as 'what makes the Bible true for YOU?".

I would like to ask gtsecc that question. Why do YOU believe that the Bible is the word of God, gtsecc? Is it only because the early church fathers have said it is? That, alone, doesn't make any sense to me.

[higgs2]

?


Huh? *Jesus Christ* is the Word of God! What are you talking about, gtsecc?

[AngCath]

I am interested in gtsecc's answer as well.

[gtsecc]

But there's no way you can claim that Holy Tradition is the 'way' to distinguish, surely?
I absolutely do in a way!:) - the confession of the community called out and proclaiming the word, the lives of the saints, and the teaching accepted by the church - remember, not all teachings are accepted, there is an organic system which accepts and regects the teaching over time and geography - it has been distilled by the church which is the community. One of the teachings is the Bible. Some books were considered in, liek Clement's first letter, but over time it was left out.

If you see the "process" that created the Bible, you should not expect that it only worked for that teaching (that teaching being the bible), and no other teachings.

[gtsecc]

Look at it this way - why accept the Bible, but then reject all the other teachings of the undivided church? It doesn't make sense to me to say this community was right about the Bible, but they had no idea what it ment, so scrap their teaching on the Bible, the Church, and Christian life. So, then how do you knwo which teachings to accept? Well, we have a good idea which teachings were accepted by the undivided church, and these are the one accepted by the entire community, east and west, and over thosands of years.

[karen freeinchristman]

Look at it this way - why accept the Bible, but then reject all the other teachings of the undivided church? It doesn't make sense to me to say this community was right about the Bible, but they had no idea what it ment, so scrap their teaching on the Bible, the Church, and Christian life.

Get a grip, gtsecc! No one here has said that! Your OP question wasn't "Why accept the Bible and then reject all tradition and early church teachings?" :doh: I doubt if anyone here would agree to rejecting all early church teachings and traditions. Anyone?

[gtsecc]

Well you are sort of stuck with accepting Bible only or...what? I think the only reasonable case is for accepting most everythign agreed upon by the undivided church. What is the alternative?

[karen freeinchristman]

Well you are sort of stuck with accepting Bible only or...what? I think the only reasonable case is for accepting most everythign agreed upon by the undivided church. What is the alternative?

Believing isn't just a case of accepting, IMO.

Anyway, no one is stuck with accepting Bible only.

[gtsecc]

What I am asking is where is the dividing line on the beliefs?
Bible Only?
Agreed upon doctrine of the undivided Church?
pre Calcedon?
Pre 1054?
pre 1066?

[ContraMundum]

there is an organic system which accepts and regects the teaching over time and geography - it has been distilled by the church which is the community.

Question- does this still happen? If so, how? If not, why not, and when did it cease?

[ContraMundum]

Look at it this way - why accept the Bible, but then reject all the other teachings of the undivided church?

When did the church cease to be One? Chalcedon? Edict of Milan?

If I affirm all the doctrines of what I perceive to be the undivided church, yet you accept all the doctrines of what you perceive to be the undivided church, and they are different, whose to say I am the heretic or if you are?

For example, the Non-Chalcedonian churches merely affirmed what they had previously held, and got booted out. Are they the only true church, undivided and unwavering? Or, were they always heretics to begin with, and if so, why were they present at the Councils from the start?

What about the post-Chalcedonian Catholic church? Are they the one, undivided church, until the split of 1054? They didn't agree about too much regarding dogma except Christology and a few other sundry matters, and the split was merely symptomatic of their diversity and disagreement.

The question is therefore- at what point in history do we freeze tradition and say "that was when the church was perfect and we must be like them"? OR- Is there a higher, more objective way of doing theology?

[DeoJuvante]

How does your experience differ from someone who says the same thing about reading the Koran?

I'm sure I'm going to get shouted down for this, but...

Perhaps the Bible forms part of God's revelation to us, as people who are drawn to the Anglican faith, but God's revelation to other people is different, for example, the Koran.

(edited: oops, I originally chose the wrong quote)

[julian the apostate]

I'm sure I'm going to get shouted down for this, but...

Perhaps the Bible forms part of God's revelation to us, as people who are drawn to the Anglican faith, but God's revelation to other people is different, for example, the Koran.

(edited: oops, I originally chose the wrong quote)


heaven forbid man, you sound like a,, well

ANGLICAN!

[ContraMundum]

I'm sure I'm going to get shouted down for this, but...

Perhaps the Bible forms part of God's revelation to us, as people who are drawn to the Anglican faith, but God's revelation to other people is different, for example, the Koran.

(edited: oops, I originally chose the wrong quote)

Ummm.......what? Are you saying that God uses the Koran ro reveal Himself to Muslims, or that the Bhagavad-Gita or whatever to other peoples?

[Wiffey]

Ummm....one of the reasons that the "Undivided Church" was undivided was lack of instant communication. Pre-Schism each Bishop was in charge of their own area, Ecumenical Councils were not a regular event and were only called to define doctrine when it became clear that one part or another of Christendom had begun to seriously diverge from another.

Average folks were not theologians, and while they agreed on a certain core faith, there was actually a great deal of diversity of belief and expression of belief from place to place. Which was OK as long as it did not contradict any defined doctrine. Please note that in the very early Church, there was very little that had been defined. It is too easy to (in retrospect) look at the total canon of dogma and assume that the whole early Church was in agreement on all those points. Not so...

[DeoJuvante]

Ummm.......what? Are you saying that God uses the Koran ro reveal Himself to Muslims, or that the Bhagavad-Gita or whatever to other peoples?

I'm saying that it's certainly possible.

[gtsecc]

I can't think of a good reason not to accept pre-calcedon doctrine currently accepted to day in the East and West.

[Colabomb]

heaven forbid man, you sound like a,, well

ANGLICAN!
No, he sounds like a liberal Anglican.

Remember, there are a few of us over here on the Right who would call the koran a demonic book of lies.

[Colabomb]

I believe in the Sola Scriptura of the Reformationists. Today it would probably be better referred to as Prima Scriptura, as fundementalists have taken Sola Scriptura and made it something else.

[AngCath]

It seems that "Prima Scriptura", as Colabomb has called it, is something that ALL Christians could agree upon.

[artrx]

the inspiration is also contained in the fact that the Spirit of God hovers over the words as he did upon the newly created waters

I love that imagery:thumbsup:

the bible is sacramental, not a self help manual or a science text book or the actual dictated words of God

I agree.

How does your experience differ from someone who says the same thing about reading the Koran?


Good question and worth honestly looking into.

But there's no way you can claim that Holy Tradition is the 'way' to distinguish, surely?

my question as well...
Well you are sort of stuck with accepting Bible only or...what? I think the only reasonable case is for accepting most everythign agreed upon by the undivided church. What is the alternative?....
What I am asking is where is the dividing line on the beliefs?
Bible Only?
Agreed upon doctrine of the undivided Church?
pre Calcedon?
Pre 1054?
pre 1066?

Maybe God is outside/greater than the little box of our traditions and beliefs as well as in them. Maybe its presumptuous to assume we set the limits of understanding .
(I suppose I'll join the ranks of SaepiusOfficio....)
I'm sure I'm going to get shouted down for this, but...

Perhaps the Bible forms part of God's revelation to us, as people who are drawn to the Anglican faith, but God's revelation to other people is different, for example, the Koran.

Ummm.......what? Are you saying that God uses the Koran to reveal Himself to Muslims, or that the Bhagavad-Gita or whatever to other peoples?

yes, possibly. But none of that denies the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. What it does is call into question whether it is the only word of God. My personal spirituality/relationship with my Creator has been greatly blessed by truths I have learned from other religious traditions/cultures.

[karen freeinchristman]

Maybe God is outside/greater than the little box of our traditions and beliefs as well as in them. Maybe its presumptuous to assume we set the limits of understanding .



:)

[gtsecc]

I think we have to becareful - yes, God is outside of our understanding, but I don't think any of us would deny the Nicene creed for example, so, there are limits which we agree upon.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think we have to becareful - yes, God is outside of our understanding, but I don't think any of us would deny the Nicene creed for example, so, there are limits which we agree upon.

Eureka, gtsecc! You've got it! :clap:


:)

[gtsecc]

Who gave us the Bible?
Can we accept their authority as being guided by the Holy Spirit in the matter of cannonicity of writings to go in the Bible, but then think they are wrong on everything else, like what the Bible means?

[AngCath]

I don't think anyone, at least in STR, thinks that the Church that the Bible emerged from is wrong about "everything else"

[gtsecc]

so, what else was it right about?

[Colabomb]

Who gave us the Bible?
Can we accept their authority as being guided by the Holy Spirit in the matter of cannonicity of writings to go in the Bible, but then think they are wrong on everything else, like what the Bible means?
I believe that the Church was an instrument God used to bring about the Scriptures. Many state that "The Church Gave us the Scriptures" as if the Bishops were actually deciding what the Scriptures should and shouldn't be based on their own judgement.

No, God led the Church to the Scriptures. He inspired the Authors, He taught the Bishops to weed out the fakes, and he taught the church to revere His word.

GOD gave us the Scriptures through the Church.

I believe the Church of Christ has the majority of things down fine, but when the Church disagrees with the Scriptures, I must side with the Scriptures.

[gtsecc]

God guided the Bishops on selection of Scripture, but kept them in the dark about the other stuff?

[Colabomb]

so, what else was it right about?
The Divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity... etc.

It's when the Church starts mandating things not from Scripture that Bother me.

Examples: Purpetual Virginity of Mary (RCC), the Acceptability of Homosexuality (ECUSA) the concept of Papal infalibility (RCC)....

[Colabomb]

God guided the Bishops on selection of Scripture, but kept them in the dark about the other stuff?
Who said I disagreed with everything the Bishops say?

You are stabbing a strawman.

As it has been said, the Church has most things right, I simply will not say they are infallible.

[gtsecc]

Colabomb, I am not attacking you.

I am askign a question, can we beleive that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishop for one thithing, the Bible, and then left them for the other stuff? If not, then what other stuff were they right about? Perpetual Virginity is not that important doctrinaly, but it does shed light on authority.

[Colabomb]

Colabomb, I am not attacking you.

I am askign a question, can we beleive that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishop for one thithing, the Bible, and then left them for the other stuff? If not, then what other stuff were they right about? Perpetual Virginity is not that important doctrinaly, but it does shed light on authority.
Hmm...

I have a thought on how to reply to this, but give me a moment to think it out further.

And I am sorry if I sound defensive. Sometimes I get that way. Please forgive me brother.

[Wiffey]

Quote:

yes, possibly. But none of that denies the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. What it does is call into question whether it is the only word of God. My personal spirituality/relationship with my Creator has been greatly blessed by truths I have learned from other religious traditions/cultures.



[/quote]


I agree. I believe that God reaches out in many different ways and is interpreted differently depending on things like cultural context. I have learned much from reading about a wide variety of mystical traditions...

[john23237]

What I am asking is where is the dividing line on the beliefs?
Bible Only?
Agreed upon doctrine of the undivided Church?
pre Calcedon?
Pre 1054?
pre 1066?

Why stop here? Did the Holy Spirit go into retirement in 1054? 1066? When? Has the Holy Spirit been "disabled" by the divisions of His Church? Unable to any longer led us? How very powerful we mortals must be. Exactly when did God say "I have told you everything now, I will say nothing more" and where is this written? God is just as active guiding His children in 2006 as He was in 1054 or 1066 or any other time. He has in no manner been rendered impotent by our foolish divisions and petty arguments. If we do not hear, it might be because we are too busy with just this sort of thinking to listen.

[Naomi4Christ]

Why stop here? Did the Holy Spirit go into retirement in 1054? 1066? When? Has the Holy Spirit been "disabled" by the divisions of His Church? Unable to any longer led us? How very powerful we mortals must be. Exactly when did God say "I have told you everything now, I will say nothing more" and where is this written? God is just as active guiding His children in 2006 as He was in 1054 or 1066 or any other time. He has in no manner been rendered impotent by our foolish divisions and petty arguments. If we do not hear, it might be because we are too busy with just this sort of thinking to listen.

:amen:

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by: john23237 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifWhy stop here? Did the Holy Spirit go into retirement in 1054? 1066? When? Has the Holy Spirit been "disabled" by the divisions of His Church? Unable to any longer led us? How very powerful we mortals must be. Exactly when did God say "I have told you everything now, I will say nothing more" and where is this written? God is just as active guiding His children in 2006 as He was in 1054 or 1066 or any other time. He has in no manner been rendered impotent by our foolish divisions and petty arguments. If we do not hear, it might be because we are too busy with just this sort of thinking to listen.http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

OK- this should be noted: The same annointing that we have to know the scriptures are true is the same annointing the Fathers had when they were presented with all the writings proporting to be scripture.

The Holy Spirit was both author of and witness to the scriptures. The Fathers were Christians in the Church, the Church did not make the Fathers Christians. The Holy Spirit does all the work in making Christians and guiding them.

The reason I believe the Bible is the Word of God is because the Holy Spirit annointed me and gave me the faith to believe that. The same annointing was given to the Fathers, and all who will hear His voice. We recognise the scriptures, we do not decide what they are. The Fathers were the same.

For some reason, people who think the early Church should dictate our actions as though infallible guides rather than early brethren seem to always take God out of the picture. The envisage the early councils to have been people sitting around saying "what did we recieve?" or "what does the See of Peter say?", when in fact that would have been a truncated way of doing things, because not everything received was true and the not every bishop was always right. It's not only about what we have recieved, but what does the Spirit say?

I could go on, but perhaps I'm off topic, so I'll stop.

[erin74]

Ok - sorry to not have read this entire thread, but I had a shot at the first few pages.

I did an interesting study that looked at doctrine. The first of the studies was on the bible, and how we know it to be the word of God or supreme authority.

2 Tim 3:16 says "all scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NIV from memory - so may be out a word or two).

Now the problem most have with this is that
1. why should we believe the bible when it's the bible that says it is the word of god.
2. isn't this only the old testament.

Interestingly both Peter and Paul refer to each other's writings as scripture - so without going into detail, I am going to leave it at that for point 2.

As for point 1 this is where the study got interesting.

If something is the supreme authority how would we know - if the supreme authority tells us. So the authority that can tell us that the bible is the supreme authority, is in fact the bible.

A circular argument I know - in fact the study was called 'Circles and Tangents'.

So how do we get onto this circle? There are a few ways. One might be by experiencing it for ourselves - like contra and others showed. Another might be from church history, or from just seeing the truth of what the bible says in the world around us. All of these might be the tangents we use to get onto the circle.

Now I haven't done this study in a few years, so that was a pretty rusty explanation - but I might try and dig it out (we still haven't unpacked all our books, but I'll have a look) and see if I can explain it better if you like.

[karen freeinchristman]

So how do we get onto this circle? There are a few ways. One might be by experiencing it for ourselves - like contra and others showed. Another might be from church history, or from just seeing the truth of what the bible says in the world around us. All of these might be the tangents we use to get onto the circle.


Yes, I agree, and it doesn't really matter which way we get onto the circle, as long as we are on it! :)
(What I mean by that is, each way is valid; it isn't a case of one way being better than the other ways.)

[DeoJuvante]

The reason I believe the Bible is the Word of God is because the Holy Spirit annointed me and gave me the faith to believe that. The same annointing was given to the Fathers, and all who will hear His voice. We recognise the scriptures, we do not decide what they are. The Fathers were the same.

This is interesting... I haven't heard this before. I don't mean any disrespect to your view, but does this also apply to the scriptures of other religions? I remember reading that one particularly vocal opponent of Mohammed converted to Islam upon hearing the Qur'an recited. I can't think of a more compelling example of recognising scripture.

[ContraMundum]

This is interesting... I haven't heard this before. I don't mean any disrespect to your view, but does this also apply to the scriptures of other religions?

No, they are of the Devil.

I remember reading that one particularly vocal opponent of Mohammed converted to Islam upon hearing the Qur'an recited. I can't think of a more compelling example of recognising scripture.

I knew someone would bring this kind of example up, but I'd like to point out that unless we know the full story, we can't answer. Was he running on emotion? Was he fooled? Was he really a Spirit-filled Christian? Was he hiding secret sins or rebelling against God? (The real truth behind so many "Christians" converting to Islam) Did the story even happen?

Also, I don't want to change the thread topic, but this would be a good place to discuss election and predestination, but let's not. (and no, I am NOT a Calvinist by any means!)

[SirTimothy]

Also, I don't want to change the thread topic, but this would be a good place to discuss election and predestination, but let's not. (and no, I am NOT a Calvinist by any means!)

Did John Wesley ever write an simpler to understand version of Arminius' works, by the way? I know Wesley was an ardent Arminianist from reading his Journal.

[ContraMundum]

Did John Wesley ever write an simpler to understand version of Arminius' works, by the way? I know Wesley was an ardent Arminianist from reading his Journal.

He wrote a tract called "What is an Arminian?" found here: http://http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian.stm

It should be noted that Wesleyan-Arminianism is not the same as plain old Arminianism. He affirmed total depravity in the same complete manner in which those who are closer to Augustinian theology would hold, but he taught that God gave free grace that presented itself prior to conversion, called "prevenient grace", which in turn enabled men to come to repentance.

Here are some links of Wesley's works on the topic:

http://gbgm-umc.org/Umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-058.stm

http://www.godrules.net/library/wsermons/wsermons128.htm

Here are some informative links about Wesleyan-Armininianism:

http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.the.calvinist.htm

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/21-25/22-06.htm

Hope this helps.....ask in PM if you need more or different info.