(the following quotation and excerpt are taken from [i]The Old Evangelicalism[/i] by Iain H. Murray)
Review of [i]Annals of the American Pulpit (Methodist), in the Biritish and Foreign Evangelical Review[/i], vol. xi (London: Nisbet, 1862), pp. 301-2.
"They call themselves Arminians; but it is perfectly obvious that their theology differs widely from that of Limborch, and Whitby, and Warburton, and all the recognized Arminian divines of Holland and England. . . .
They differ widely and radically in principles and in results; whereas when we hear the gospel preached by a Methodist, we feel that it is the very same to which we love to listen, and are accustomed to hear as Presbyterians. . . . Man's ruin by the fall, his native depravity and alienation from God, his absolute need of a Saviour, and utter inability to save himself, the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification, not by works, but by faith alone in the blood and righteousness of Jesus, the free offer of the gospel to every human being without money and without price, the necessity of holiness, not to merit heaven, but to become meet for it -- these articles constituted the very burden of their preaching."
The label 'Calvinism' is equally open to more than one meaning. There is some excuse for Wesley being confused over what is the authentic thing, for true Calvinism is not the narrow thing to be found in parts of the eighteenth-century Dissent. The latter was not Whitefield's Calvinism. 'God is loving to every man,' said Whitefield. Calvin himself preached, 'Jesus Christ offers himself generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer.' . . .
Wesley was surely right in believing that if there is no love of God to be proclaimed to all men then there is no real gospel for all men. John Knox once wrote:
By what means Satan first drew mankind from the obedience of God, the Scripture doth witness: To wit, by pouring into their hearts that poison, that God did not love them.