This is one final reminder:
Had a conference with a certain person of the parish, who, I heard last night, had been broaching many heretical doctrines to one of my friends, particularly in denying the eternity of hell torments. I therefore invited him this morning to breakfast; and after imploring God’s assistance, in the spirit of meekness, I asked him, whether he believed the eternity of hell torments? He answeied frankly, ” No.” I replied, ” What do you mean, sir, when you repeat the twelfth article of our creed ?” lie said, ” He believed wicked men were to be annihilated.” I then read Pearson’s ” Exposition” of the last article, but he denied it all, said he thought himself in the right, and believed it his duty to inform mankind, that they were to be annihilated. Upon which I repeated to him that passage out of the Revelations, “If any man shall take away from, or add unto the words that are written in this book, God shall take away his name out of the Book of Life, and add unto him all the plagues that are written in this book.” This, he said, he believed. Afterwards we discoursed afiesh, but finding him resolute to propagate his principles, I then told him with the utmost calmness, that I was sorry that I gave him the cup yesterday at the sacrament; but for the future, he must pardon me, if I refused ever to give it him again. This staggered him a little, but he bore it pretty patiently, yet thought me uncharitable. But I told him I should meet him at the judgment-seat of Christ, and then he would see upon what principles I acted…
George Whitefield 1, annihilationist 0
Ouch!
Do NOT mess with George Whitefield.
From http://www.clotheslineblog.com/files/imagecache/imageblog/files/hellfire.jpg
RE “George Whitfield vs Annihilationist”
This is not George Whitfield @ his best!
I have a great admiration for GW & his life & ministry & doctrines & principles & sermons & letters & just about anything you care to mention about the REAL Saint George of England – because that’s who he is! But………
Have you noticed a PROBLEM with this conversation he has with Mr A.? A SERIOUS problem…?
There is a complete absence of a Biblical argument against Mr A holding his position!
“Pearson’s Exposition” is quoted against Mr A, Anglican Articles are quoted against Mr A, finally a warning against being unScriptural & a refusal to admit him to the Communion Table is thrown @ poor Mr A!but nowhere is his position refuted – he is simply to be silenced & dissfellowshipped!
i know Evangelical Christians who hold one position, others who hold the other. They remain authentic Evangelicals if they hold that Judgement/Hell are REAL & physical, & hold their view for BIBLICAL reasons. Any OTHER arguments (philosophical/emotional/traditional etc are interesting but NOT authoratative).
To fall back on those 3 OTHER sources is usually an indication of a weakness in ones position.
On THIS issue, this is unfortunately, the line that GW, (who ought to know better) takes.
But on THIS issue, frankly, he would have to!
(The Christian who believes that “the wages of sin is death” cannot be accused by the person who believes that, “the wages of sin is eternal life (under torture)” of being “UNBIBLICAL”!
“Untraditional” possibly, but that’s a separate issue.
Evangelicals of both views should be able to enjoy the Fellowship Meal together (Precise agreement over “Duration of Conscious torment in Hell” should not be a pre-requisite to doing so. Sorry George, but it shouldn’t!)
So……
RESULT? “Annihilationist” 1 G.Whitfield (Own Goal)
Thanks for the comment Michael.
I agree with you. I wrote a big essay on George Whitefield last year and although I very much admire him, and do not doubt for a moment that he is a good contender for the greatest preacher EVER, he is still human. I think that although his doctrine was quite good, these comments demonstrate that he was not particularly open-minded to a spectrum of orthodox opinions, and that he lacked people-skills.
I find your defense of Mr A appropriate. His refutation was entirely unbiblical, which is a great shame.
Incidentally, this was the last in a series of posts I wrote seeking to highlight some of the quirky incidents I found when reading his journals.
The first recounts two bizarre incidents where he eats a porpoise and a dolphin.
The second is where he kinda beats up a couple of 4 year olds on a sea voyage:
obviously this isn’t him at his best either, and his behaviour would probably get him locked up these days. However I will offer in his defence that it was culturally acceptable at the time and that on a tiny ship such as he was on it was vital to maintain a strict level of discipline. I am willing to forgive him these faults and still enjoy him for the great evangelist that he was.
My essay was against a book “The Divine Dramatist” by Harry Stout, that quite painfully reduced most of George Whitefield’s character to a psychological desire to redeem his family name from his poor upbringing. While the book was almost entirely negative, it did a great job of highlighting George Whitefield’s acting flair as essential to his preaching success. I think I’ll post on that in the next little while to even up the balance.
JB