Issue 2, Fall 2000, Volume 18

THE FAITH FACTOR

Vic Reasoner

If we are justified by faith, it should come as no surprise that the devil would attempt to redefine "faith."  Saving faith has been reduced to a one-time decision for Christ.  However, the New Testament teaches: 

1.   Saving faith is a present tense faith.

The Greek verb pisteuo occurs 248 times in the New Testament.  Many references in the Gospels and Acts are a matter of historical record.  Of particular interest are some ninety references which state general commands or promises.  While there are a few instances of commands which emphasize the initial act of faith, every stated promise of eternal life or eternal reward to those who believe is based on a present tense continuous faith. 

It is ironic that the popular gospel teaching today proclaims that a sinner is free to choose or reject Christ, but once becoming a Christian he then loses the power of contrary choice.  That momentary decision can never be reversed.  This misconception is based upon a static and unscriptural understanding of faith.  True faith is like breathing; we have to keep on. 

Joseph Benson, an early Methodist commentator, preached on the text from 2 Peter 3:17-18, "Beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.  But grow in grace."  The title of his message says it all, "Growth in Grace the Only Security Against Falling From It."

2.  Saving faith produces good works.

As we live by faith Romans 1:17 also teaches that we grow in faith.  Romans 6 asserts that justification and initial sanctification are bound together.  We cannot have the one without having the other.  The term "old man" occurs three times in Paul's writings.  In Romans 6:6 Paul states that our old man was crucified with Christ.  Colossians 3:9 declares that believers have put off their old way of life.  Ephesians 4:22 is an imperative for Christians to put it off.

It is inconsistent with scripture to teach that one can become born again without any change.  It is also inconsistent to teach that a believer can slip back and forth between the old lifestyle and the new (Rom 6:20, 22).  No man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24).   Two natures may exist in the life of the justified, but only one can control.  Saving faith produces the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23).  Those who are born again do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom 8:4).

However, if faith is reduced to a momentary decision and our theology teaches that once having made that decision we can never perish, what will we do with those who have made a profession of faith but exhibit no fruit?  People make a momentary decision for Christ, which produces no evidence of salvation, and yet are told daily by radio preachers that they cannot lose this salvation.  But there are no unconditional covenants in Scripture.  While certain verses taken out of context may appear to offer unconditional security, they must be reconciled with the many conditions stated.

Furthermore, every passage which describes the final judgment states that we will be judged in that day on the basis of our works.  It is ironic that the sinner is held morally responsible to obey God, but when he becomes a Christian faithfulness is not required.  The Christian, according to this popular teaching, is judged at a lower standard and at a different judgment.

3.  Saving faith brings assurance.

The third deficiency in the false faith promoted today is that it produces no divine assurance.  According to Hebrews      11:1, true faith produces assurance or confidence.  This word hupostasis was found in papyri sources to denote a title      deed.  William Lane translates this opening phrase in Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith celebrates the objective reality of the       blessings for which we hope."

Faith is also the evidence or proof of things not seen.  John Wesley preached that faith is a divine evidence and conviction, not only that 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,' but also that Christ 'loved me and gave himself for me.' . . . .  And it is certain this faith necessarily implies an assurance . . .that 'Christ loved me, and gave himself for me.'  For 'he that believeth' with the true, living faith 'hath the witness in himself.'  The Spirit witnesseth with his spirit that he is a child of God.  Because he is a son, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into his heart, crying, Abba, Father; giving him an assurance that he is so, and a childlike confidence in him.

A false faith produces no assurance.  However, the Holy Spirit still convicts of sin (John 16:8).  This conviction creates anxiety.  Secular psychology, therefore, complains that religion upsets people.  But the "carnal Christian" should be upset.  Ten percent of the total Christian population is sexually addicted.  The "carnal Christian" should be anxious because the Scripture teaches that sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like are acts of the sinful nature and those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).  The right kind of preaching would produce even more conviction! 

We protest a false faith which does not require any commitment or obedience beyond an initial decision.  It is a dead faith which produces no spiritual fruit and brings no divine assurance.  If a church member exercises no faith, gives no evidence of having been saved, and has no supernatural assurance that he is saved C it should be obvious that he is not saved!

Yet the popular preachers teach a false assurance based on their rationalistic doctrine of "once saved, always saved."  They teach I can have it and not feel it, but I can never lose it if I ever get it!  I would rather know that I am saved and yet know that salvation could be forfeited than to be talked into a profession that I did not possess, but told I could not lose. 

While the Holy Spirit convicts the nominal Christian that they are not ready to meet God, these preachers misapply the Word of God by teaching a false security while the Holy Spirit calls for surrender.  Yet the logic of their teaching cannot compete with the gentle whisper of the Holy Spirit.  The mind of the nominal Christian may accept the logic of the smooth teacher, but in his heart he knows something is not right.

Quit trying to justify what God's Word condemns.  Agree with the voice of the Holy Spirit and surrender to the lordship of Christ.  God will then enable you to believe and when you trust in Christ with all your heart, He will come through His Spirit and make a new person out of you.  You will know that you are truly saved because the Holy Spirit will bring peace and because you see the indirect evidence of a changed life. 

Some may object that this Wesleyan-Arminian emphasis is conditional.  They often scoff that we have no assurance.  The caricature us as believing that "every other day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before" and that we have to be born again and again and again.  On the other hand, they are eternally secure.

But the Bible warns that this salvation may be forfeited.  Apostasy is a real possibility.  John Wesley did preach that salvation is conditional.  But he also preached that the Spirit of God does give a believer such a testimony of his adoption that while it is present to the soul he can no more doubt the reality of his sonship than he can doubt of the shining of the sun while he stands full blaze of his beams.

A present tense faith produces a present tense assurance.  The witness of the Spirit produces more actual security than all the logical deductions which argue that the elect can never be lost, but can provide no absolute assurance of election. 

We preach a free gospel for all men and a full gospel from all sin.  It is based upon a present tense faith which produces good works and brings assurance.  We believe that if we keep ourselves in the love of God he is able to keep us from falling (Jude 21-24) and that he will appear a second time to bring final salvation to those who are believing (Heb 9:28).  This is the faith which saves. [This is an edited version of an address given on Sept 25, 1998 at the Conference on the Believer=s Security.  Cassette tapes of this message may be ordered from Dan Corner at <evangelicaloutreach.org>]

A PRELIMINARY DEFENSE OF PREVENIENT GRACE

Steve Witzki

The work of conversion is always initiated by the grace of God.  John Wesley believed that God=s prevenient grace was intended to be for all people.  He said Athe grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, and FREE FOR ALL.@

The need for this prevenient grace is based upon man=s fallen condition.  Wesleyans and Calvinists are in fundamental agreement on man=s depravity.  In fact, the command to repent and believe, found throughout scripture, would be impossible were it not for God=s grace.

While Calvinists distinguish between common grace and special grace, they teach that special grace alone is saving grace.  Special grace is extended only to the elect and is irresistible.  Wesleyans find no biblical basis for the theological distinctions of common and special grace.  Instead, Wesleyans teach a preliminary or prevenient grace.  The doctrine of prevenient grace breaks the chain of logical necessity taught by Calvinists.  The word prevenient or preventing is from two Latin words which mean to come before.  Prevenient grace enables the sinner to either accept or reject the gift of salvation provided through Christ.

The Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace simply refers to the grace of God that goes before or precedes any movement of man toward God.  Grace flows from the Father=s self-giving love for lost humanity (John 3:16-18), and is mediated through the active life and obedient death of the Son.  The Holy Spirit administers the finished work of the Son through his convicting, converting, regenerating, and justifying work in the hearts of repentant sinners (John 16:8-11).

Does the Bible teach prevenient grace? 

John 1:9 teaches that Christ brought sufficient light into the world to graciously illuminate every person.  The illumination does not guarantee the salvation of anyone, but it makes the choice of salvation possible.  John Wesley described Athe first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first, slight, transient conviction of having sinning against him.  All these,@ said Wesley, Aimply some tendency toward life, some degree of salvation, the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart.@  While everyone may not have the same amount of light, those who miss heaven will be denied on the basis that they rejected whatever amount of light they did receive.

There would be no need for a universal atonement if all were not given the opportunity to accept salvation.  John 12:32 declares that all men are drawn to Christ.  This gracious drawing is resistible, but provides all people with the opportunity to believe.  The Greek verb helkuo does not mean that God irresistibly drags the elect into faith.  AThere is no thought here of force or magic.  The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44),@ writes Oepke in Kittel=s One-Volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.   The idea of a selective drawing contradicts the universalistic language used throughout John=s Gospel and the entire New Testament.

In John 16:8-11 we see that the ongoing ministry of the Spirit is to convict (elencho) the entire fallen world of mankind of their sin of unbelief.  The Spirit's motive for this work is to steer the guilty party toward redemption.  Elencho means: "to show someone his sin and to summon him to repentance" [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:474].  The ultimate goal of this conviction is to restore relationships between persons (Matt. 18:15; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:13; 2:15; cf. John 8:46) or between a person and God (e.g., John 16:8; Heb. 12:5) [The Complete Biblical Library, Greek-English Dictionary, 12:373].  People would never see their need for a Savior without the Spirit convicting them of their sin that separates them from a holy God.

Romans 2:4 teaches that God continues to lead (present tense) sinners to repentance.  Even the Calvinistic theologian Charles Hodge, in his commentary on Romans, interpreted this verse as teaching prevenient grace.  Yet he denied the implications of this doctrine.  The following verse indicates that while God leads, man may refuse to be lead.  We cannot conclude that this grace is simply common grace, not meant to lead men unto salvation, because the goal of this leading is repentance, the first step of conversion.  And verse seven promises that the goal of this leading is eternal life.

While Titus 2:11 says that God=s grace has appeared to all men, we cannot conclude that all men will be saved.  Yet that grace cannot be explained as simply Acommon grace.@  The purpose of that grace was to bring salvation.  While it is God=s will that all men be saved (1 Tim 2:4), the grace which appears to all is resistible.

Therefore, we conclude with John Fletcher that AAll our salvation is of God; All our damnation is of ourselves.@

A WORD FROM WATSON

 The name "Watson" is usually associated with G. D. Watson, a popular holiness author.  Few people have had any exposure to Richard Watson, the first Methodist to publish a systematic theology.  We think part of the problem is that the wrong Watson has been reprinted and read.  This is the seventh extraction from Richard Watson to be published in this magazine.  This is a summary of Richard Watson=s sermon, AInward Religion,@ found in Sermons and Sketches of Sermons (1834; Rpt. New York: Carlton & Porter, 1851)Sermon #108, 2:379-81.

There are some persons, I know, who deny that feeling forms any essential part of religion.  They might as well say, either that man has no feelings, or that there is one faculty of the mind which religion does not control.  I have no hesitation is saying, in opposition to such sentiments, that wherever Christianity is, it must produce deep and strong, and consistent emotion.  We do not say that these deep emotions are always visibly expressed.  We have no higher opinion of those persons who are always giving expression to their religious feelings, than of those who would restrain and hide them in their hearts. 

Wheresoever there is true piety, there will be strong feelings.  We are naturally capable of such feelings and the design of religion is not to destroy what is properly natural, but to sanctify it, by giving it a new direction and object.  One object of the religion of Christ is to destroy the enmity to God which is deeply rooted in the affections of our nature and to cleanse away the impurity that cleaves to them, but religion cannot do this if it takes away from us the power of feeling when the great truths of religion are revealed to our understandings.  The religion that strangely hardened the heart and destroyed all feeling in the soul would be worse than worthless, it would be positively injurious. 

Look at man as God has made him and then decide if the great things of eternity could be set before him without producing lively and constant emotion.  It is very easy for strangers to emotions of this kind to give them the name of fanaticism.  But the real danger will not be found in emotion itself, but in the opinions and principles which influence our emotions.  Men may believe that they may cherish hatred without sin, and thus fall into fanaticism, but let not this be charged on true religion.  But when men are properly taught, their emotions will chiefly be awakened by the views they take of God.  Feelings which arise from right principles and opinions will seldom be wrong.

Men find it easier to study Christianity as a science, than to bring their feelings to it.  If they could repent without sorrow, if they could desire and love God without emotion kindled in their hearts, how easy all would be!  But this implies contradictions in the very terms that are employed.  Repentance implies feeling.  The desire of forgiveness implies feeling.  Love to God implies feeling.  Joy in the Holy Ghost implies feeling.  All attempts to banish these feelings from religion prove that religion itself is not understood. 

We have no scruple in saying that if we are Christians inwardly, we shall be the subjects of very powerful emotions.  If we have ever truly repented and have believed in Christ, then do we love him and love him with all the warm affection of a grateful and adoring heart.  If we are rightly influenced by religion, it has produced in us deep solemnity and sacred fear.  We behold the perfections of the divine character with awe.  There is veneration as well as love.  And there is the holy fear lest at any time we grieve his Spirit; lest we should even seem to come short of the rest which he has promised.  And these powerful feelings exist in the heart, instead of those unholy and worldly ones which once dwelt there.

AN ARMINIAN COVENANT THEOLOGY

Vic Reasoner

Too many Arminians have pushed their tray through the theological cafeteria, accepting a helping of whatever sounded good.  Before we accept all the popular theology of the celebrity teachers, we had better determine upon what presuppositions their teaching is based.  A proper understanding of covenants will help us sort out some of the confusion.

The concept of covenant permeates the Hebrew understanding of their relationship with God.   Yahweh, the self-existent God, initiates and keeps covenant with man.  He is motivated by a steadfast love called hesed, which is translated Aloving kindness@ or Amercy.@

That the transcendent God would condescend to enter into partnership with his own creation is indeed cause for worship.  He is not dependent upon us for anything nor do we have anything to offer him which he has not first given us.  Yet he desires to cut a covenant with mankind and enter into a personal relationship with his creation.

Because God=s nature is covenantal, we who are created in his image also make covenants.  The Hebrew word berith is used over 280 times in the Old Testament to describe treaties, alliances, or leagues between men.  It is used to describe a constitution between a ruler and his subjects.  And it is used of a relationship between God and his people.

The basic pattern for a covenant, whether secular or sacred, contained: a preamble, in which the initiator is identified; a historical prologue describing previous relations between the parties; stipulations and demands which were to be read publicly at regular intervals; swearing of an oath with blessings and curses; the designation of witnesses and successors.

The Greek word diatheke occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament.  In the KJV it is translated Acovenant@ twenty times and Atestament@ thirteen times.  A diatheke was a will that distributed the property after the owner=s death.  It was completely one-sided; the terms were controlled by the initiator.  The ordinary Greek word for covenant was syntheke, but since the prefix syn means Atogether with,@ it was not used in the New Testament lest it suggest an equality of partners. 

Therefore, we cannot negotiate a covenant with God.  It is always God who makes covenant with someone; never that God and someone make a covenant.  He is the initiator and we either accept or reject his terms.  To accept the terms of the covenant involves an unconditional surrender on our part.  But we must not only pledge our faith, we must keep faith since the very nature of a covenant is relational.  The Church is comprised of those who express their faith through obedience to the covenant.  While it is contrary to God=s nature to break covenant with us, the history of man=s relationship with God is one of broken covenants. 

The Jews seemed to think that for God to condemn a Jew would be a violation of his promises to them and that God would then be unfaithful.  This thinking was based on the false assumption that God=s covenants are unconditional.  Paul declared that God is faithful, even if every man is unfaithful (Romans 3:3-4).  But will God maintain covenant with covenant breakers?

The very nature of a covenant implies mutual obligations.  We are not discussing a blank  check or an outright grant, with no strings attached.  Stipulations are inherent within a covenant.  Watson defined the essence of a covenant as mutual stipulations between two parties. AIt could not be a covenant unless there were terms, something required, as well as something promised or given, duties to be performed, as well as blessings to be received.@  Not only are there blessings promised for those who keep covenant, whoever breaks covenant has brought a curse upon himself.  Therefore, scripture warns that it is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it (Eccl 5:5).    

John Wesley wrote that the grand covenant, Ais a covenant between God and man, established in the hands of a Mediator, >who tasted death for every man,= and thereby purchased it for all the children of men. The tenor of it (so often mentioned already) is this: >Whosoever believeth unto the end, so as to show his faith by his works, I the Lord will reward that soul eternally. But whosoever will not believe, and consequently dieth in his sins, I will punish him with everlasting  destruction.=@

Wesley continued by raising the question Awhether this covenant between God and man be unconditional or conditional.@  Wesley then went back to the covenant made with Abraham. While the covenant was everlasting, Wesley demonstrated it was conditional.  The terms of a covenant are everlasting, but a covenant is also conditional in the sense that both parties must maintain their eternal agreement.

Wesley also said that the covenant with Abraham was Aa gospel covenant; the condition the same, namely, faith, which the Apostle observes was >imputed unto him for righteousness.= The inseparable fruit of this faith was obedience; for by faith he left his country, and offered his son. The benefits were the same; for God promised >I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee:= And he can promise no more to any creature; for this includes all blessings, temporal and eternal. The Mediator is the same; for it was in his Seed, that is, in Christ, (Gen 22:18; Gal 3:16,) that all nations were to be blessed; on which very account the Apostle says, >The gospel was preached unto Abraham.= (Gal 3:8.) Now, the same promise that was made to him, the same covenant that was made with him, was made >with his children after him.= (Gen17:7; Gal 3:7.) And upon that account it is called >an everlasting covenant.=@ Therefore, it was both an everlasting covenant and a conditional covenant.

Later Wesley demonstrated that the Davidic Covenant was conditional and concluded that, even when not explicitly stated, conditions are implied in all covenants.  This has been the historic Wesleyan-Arminian understanding of covenants.  Joseph Benson wrote,

The performance of the promises to the natural seed of Abraham, is, in the original covenant, tacitly made to depend on their faith and obedience (Gen 18:19), and that it is explicitly made to depend on that condition in the renewal of the covenant (Deut 28:1-14).  Besides, on that occasion, God expressly threatened to expel the natural seed from Canaan, and scatter them among the heathen, if they became unbelieving and disobedient (Lev 26:33; Deut 28:64).  The rejection, therefore, and expulsion of the Jews from Canaan, for their unbelief, being a fulfilling of the threatenings of the covenant, established the faithfulness of God, instead of destroying it. . . .  God=s promises, like his threatenings, were all conditional.

Adam Clarke wrote,

We must ever maintain that God is true, and that if, in any case, his promise appear to fail, it is because the condition on which it was given has not been complied with. . . .  Should any man say that the promise of God had failed toward him, let him examine his heart and his ways, and he will find that he has departed out of that way in which alone God could, consistently with his holiness and truth, fulfil the promise.

God is faithful to his Word, but his Word contains both promises and warnings.  The unfaithfulness of the Jews broke the covenant (see 9:6-14), but did not nullify the faithfulness of God to his Word and his promises to Abraham.  In his Theological Dictionary, Richard Watson wrote that there are really only two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.  Watson taught that after Adam broke the covenant of works, God gave Abraham a covenant of grace.  While the Mosaic dispensation was also a covenant of works, it was given to demonstrate man=s sinfulness and was a foreshadowing of something better.  Like the covenant with Adam, the covenant with Moses was broken by Israel and ended by God.   The new covenant, argued Watson, was really the substance of the Abrahamic covenant.  The new covenant was new because, after man had broken the covenant of works, it was pure grace or favor in the Almighty to enter into a new covenant with him; and, because by the covenant there is conveyed that grace which enables man to comply with the terms of it. . . . But, although there are mutual stipulations, the covenant retains its character of a covenant of grace, and must be regarded as having its source purely in the grace of God.  For the very circumstances which rendered the new covenant necessary, take away the possibility of there being any merit upon our part: the faith by which the covenant is accepted is the gift of God; and all the good works by which Christians continue to keep the covenant, originate in that change of character which is the fruit of the operation of his Spirit. 

More recently Clarence Bence wrote, AWe must believe, then, that God=s promises are given conditionally, and are kept to the degree that humans respond in faith to what he has declared.@  The fact that covenants are conditional should influence our understanding of three controversial questions.

1.  Can individual salvation be lost?

Louis Berkhof writes that there are two parts in all covenants.  Yet as a Calvinist, he wants to avoid making the covenant of grace conditional.  Recognizing that there is a sense in which the covenant is conditional, he attempts to reconcile his dilemma by saying that God himself fulfills the condition by giving faith to the elect. 

Berkhof also says that while the covenant is an eternal and inviolable covenant, which God never nullified, it is possible for those who are in the covenant to break it.  This constitutes him a covenant breaker and that break may be not merely a temporary break, but a final break.  However, since there is no falling away of the saints, Berkhof has to conclude that these members of the covenant were unregenerate.  Thus, they are unregenerate or unconverted because they are not elect, for if they were regenerate they would not have finally broken covenant.

Yet Hebrews 10:26-29 describes those who have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant and at some later point in time they broke faith and ultimately land in hell.  Wesley wrote, AIt is undeniably plain,

(1.)That the person mentioned here was once sanctified by the blood of the covenant.

(2.)That he afterwards, by known, willful sin, trod under foot the Son of God. And,

(3.)That he hereby incurred a sorer punishment than death, namely, death everlasting.

Therefore, those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly.@ 

Wesley also cited such passages as Ezekiel 18:24; 1 Timothy 1:18-19; Romans 11:17-22; John 15:1-6; 2 Peter 2:20-21; Hebrews 6:4-6, and 10:38.  He concluded, AI believe a saint may fall away; that one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.@

2.  Is the marriage covenant indissolvable?

Marriage is called a covenant in Proverbs 2:17 and Malachi 2:14.  God has predetermined the terms of the agreement and it is Auntil death do us part.@  God hates divorce, but allows it when there has been unfaithfulness to the marriage vows.  The verb used in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, apoluo, implies that the marriage is dissolved.  There is a play on words here.  Just as these two people Acut a covenant@ of marriage, so their divorce cuts off that covenant.

While the marriage union must involve mutual consent; the dissolution of a marriage does not.  If one party of the covenant breaks faith, the union is broken and the innocent party cannot maintain the vows of marriage by himself. 

God is always the innocent party in cases where salvation is lost.  In cases of broken union between two humans neither may be perfect, but the one who commits any act of sexual immorality, which Jesus terms fornication, has broken the covenant and is also guilty of adultery.  While the unmarried may also commit fornication, they cannot commit adultery since they have no covenant to break.

Ironically, many Calvinists recognize the conditional nature of the marriage covenant, while many Arminians claim it is unconditional!   Ray Sutton, a Calvinist, wrote that if a marriage is a covenant then it comes under the same covenantal principles of the God-to-man covenant.  Just as the God-to-man covenant can die, so can the marriage covenant. 

On the other hand, E. E. Shelhamer, an old Free Methodist, argued that the marriage tie was indissoluble and therefore the innocent party will have to suffer the penalty of living alone during the lifetime of the other party.

At least Charles Ryrie is consistent C even if consistently wrong.  Ryrie believes that Athe gift of salvation once received is possessed forever and cannot be lost.@  Ryrie also believes that marriage is permanent, Awith no exceptions.@

I write with deep concern that I will be misunderstood as advocating divorce.  In an age of careless vows and no-fault divorce, those who take the oath of marriage need to be warned that implicit in the covenant is a self-inflicted curse which accepts in advance the judgment of God for breaking covenant.  Yet after nearly 25 years as a pastor, my concern is that the church all too often punishes the innocent party, forcing them to maintain their half of a contract which has been broken and therefore in no longer binding. 

3.  Are the Jews unconditionally elect?

Zechariah declared in 11:10-14 that God would revoke his covenant with Israel.  Wesley commented that what the prophet did typically, Christ did really.  In his Notes, Wesley explained that the Jews who would not receive the Lord became reprobate, AFor they no longer continued to be the people of God.@  Their titles and privileges were transferred to both Jews and Gentiles who embraced Christianity [Rom 8:33].  Therefore, the Gospel and the covenant with Abraham are essentially the same.

Joseph Benson explained that through their infidelity the Jews forfeited their right to be counted as the seed of Abraham and that by imitating his faith the gentiles were now received as God=s children.  Wilber Dayton wrote, AGod is vindicated of the charge of breaking faith with the Jews in making Christianity the fulfillment of His promises to them.@ 

This understanding is in direct contradiction to dispensationalism, as expressed in John MacArthur=s declaration that to teach the church has replaced Israel in God=s plan of redemption Aassumes God=s faithlessness in keeping His unconditional promise to Israel. . . .  But He has not (and because of His holy nature He could not) reneged on that promise.@  MacArthur, of course, assumes that God=s promises are unconditional.

In his evaluation of dispensationalism, the first theological flaw named by Ray Dunning is that "it is based upon a Calvinistic view of covenant with Israel that is unconditional and cannot be broken.  This leads to an eternal distinction between Israel and the Church."

While a consistent Wesleyan-Arminian cannot hold the basic assumptions of dispensationalism, popular holiness preachers have so sold their movement on an alien eschatology that to hold the historic Wesleyan position is to be considered suspect.

Ironically, it is a Calvinist, Gary DeMar, who rejects dispensationalism on the basis that covenants are conditional.  DeMar rejects the notion that the promises of land to Israel are still in effect.  According to Leviticus 18:24-30, remaining in the land was conditional. 

If Israel did not obey, God said He would spew them out (v 28).  But did not God promise to give the land to Abraham and his descendants Aforever@ (Gen 13:15)?  Of course he did.  Jesus addresses this in Matthew 5:3-10.  In fact, all the OT promises are fulfilled in the NT in the person and work of Christ.

But there remains a conditional side to the promises.  Jesus states, without reservation or equivocation, that A>the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.= . . .  And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them@ (Matt 21:45).  Anyone who claims to interpret the Bible literally cannot easily dismiss these passages.  God is interpreting the OT promises for us!  It=s His word over against that of C. I. Scofield.

DeMar, the Calvinist, concludes, AIf the promises to Israel are unconditional, then no matter what Israel does, she still inherits all the promises. . . .  There can be no Aspewing out,@ no kingdom Ataken away,@ and no coming to Aremove your lampstand@ (Rev 2:5).  While neither DeMar nor I would deny the prophecy of Romans 11:26, that all Israel will be saved, what we would deny is that she will be saved under different terms or revert back to the old covenant.  Instead, they will be grafted into the Church (v 24). 

DeMar=s exegesis leaves me with only two unanswered questions.  If committed Calvinists recognize that Israel, God=s elect, broke covenant, how can they teach with any consistency that the saints will persevere?  And why would any Wesleyan-Arminian adopt the prophetic conclusions of dispensationalism, when they are based on a false view of covenants?

Since covenants are, by nature, conditional, let us pray for grace to keep them.  Let us keep covenant with God, the Church, and our family.

New Wesley Material

Randy L. Maddox, AWesley=s Understanding of Christian Perfection: In What Sense Pentecostal? Wesleyan Theological Journal 34:2 (Fall 1999): 78-110.

 According to Marsh Jones, who wrote his Ph. D. dissertation on Joseph Benson, there is a period of about ten years from 1770 to 1880 in which Joseph Benson is struggling to understand entire sanctification and even salvation (see his letter in the Spring 1999 Arminian Magazine).  In 1769 Benson had first met John Fletcher at Trevecca College.  At the time Benson was 21 and Fletcher was 40.  Under the influence of Fletcher=s teaching, Benson wrote an essay on the baptism with the Holy Spirit.  Although that essay has been lost, apparently Benson sent it to Wesley.  On December 28, 1770, John Wesley wrote his famous letter to Benson, in which he first describes being made perfect in love and then corrects the mistaken view that believers receive the Holy Ghost at this second change.

If they like to call this Areceiving the Holy Ghost,@ they may: Only the phrase, in that sense, is not scriptural, and not quite proper; for they all Areceived the Holy Ghost@ when they were justified. God then Asent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father.@   

While that letter did not refer to John Fletcher by name, in a second letter to Benson on March 9, 1771 Wesley warned him about Fletcher=s Alate discovery.@  The editor of Wesley=s letters, John Telford explained that Fletcher=s Adiscovery@ was his doctrine of Areceiving the Holy Ghost,@ which Wesley thought was unscriptural.  Telford continued, AWesley held that it was improper to separate the work of sanctification from justification, and that all who were justified had received the Holy Spirit.@

Maddox concludes that there was a diversity between Fletcher and Wesley over the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  By the late 1770s this issue faded from their focus, although both men retained their differing opinions.  However, in an appendix, Maddox publishes for the first time ever John Wesley=s notes in reaction to the Benson essay on AThe Baptism of the Holy Ghost.@ 

This manuscript, in Wesley=s handwriting, is located at Duke University.  Wesley is reacting to a document which no longer exists, so, in a sense, we only get one side of the Aconversation.@  Here, then, are the significant statements by Wesley regarding Spirit baptism which are contained in this manuscript:

Is not an assurance of God=s favor the fruit of Areceiving the Holy Ghost@?  i.e. in the first degree?

This sentiment, I think, is utterly new.  I never yet baptized a real Penitent who was not then baptized with the Holy Ghost.  See our Catechism.  One Baptism includes the Outward Sign and the Inward Grace.  The Quakers only speak otherwise in order to set aside Water Baptism.

Every Penitent is then baptized with the Holy Ghost; i.e., receives righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.  I have proved it over and over.

Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost C i.e. shall receive him as ye have not yet done. St. Paul certainly means that to Christians there is but One Baptism or Outward sign of the New Birth.

I doubt if the word Baptism is ever used (unless twice or thrice metaphorically) for any but Water Baptism.  And we can sufficiently prove our whole Doctrine, without laying any stress on those metaphorical Expressions.

The thing I object to all along, is the laying so much stress on the metaphorical expression, ABaptized with the Holy Ghost.@

This entire debate has been reinterpreted to mean Wesley thought Benson and Fletcher were teaching that only the entirely sanctified had the witness of the Spirit and that he dropped his objection when he realized they were using Spirit-baptism phraseology to defend the doctrine of Christian perfection.  This is historical revisionism.  Maddox sees the true significance of this new Wesley manuscript and writes that Wesley insisted that the >baptism= or initial >receiving= of the Holy Spirit comes at justification as the initiation of Christian life. . . . the baptism of the Spirit does not bestow Christian Perfection but only the Christian faith of a >babe.=  He willingly allowed that individuals may subsequently experience deeper immersions in the Spirit who indwells them at justification, but Wesley argued that these deeper immersions should not be confused with the >new birth.=  In particular, he rejected the >metaphorical= use of >baptism= to refer not to initiatory Christian baptism but to some subsequent immersion in the Spirit.

 Wesley basically argues that the doctrine of Christian perfection need not be proven by using the phrase Abaptism with the Holy Spirit.@  Wesley is aware that the phrase occurs seldom in Scripture and he continues to emphasize that all true believers have the Holy Spirit.  Although there was diversity in the writings of early Methodism, Dr. Jones concluded

 What is relevant is what Benson, Clarke, Fletcher, and others came to expect in a Christian.  Do they expect the behavior displayed by the apostles before the Day of Pentecost or after?  I would argue (and a little research would bear this out, it certainly does in the case of Benson) that none of them would ever describe the pre-Pentecost Peter as regenerate.

Joseph Sutcliffe Reprinted

Joseph Sutcliffe (1762-1856) was converted in early life and was appointed by Wesley to Redruth in 1786.  He introduced Methodism into the Scilly Isles in 1788.  His life was one of "unspotted Christian purity and progressive excellence.  In Biblical scholarship he especially excelled" (John McClintock and James Strong).  His two-volume commentary, A Commentary on the Old and New Testament, published in 1834,  is not well known, but it represents the early Methodist interpretation and emphasis.

We are delighted to report that Allegheny Publications is reprinting this commentary in seven paperback volumes for a retail price of $99.95.  We are also very happy that their next major project is Joseph Benson=s Notes on the Old and New Testaments.  Contact them at (330) 337-0280 or <bobjohn@raex.com>  for details.

Richard Watson's Dictionary Reprinted

In 1831-2 Richard Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary was published on the heels of his Theological Institutes, the first Methodist theology.  A new abridged edition of Watson's Dictionary is now available.  Although the original dictionary was a biblical and theological reference work, the availability of many Bible dictionaries makes the reprinting of Watson=s entries on biblical topics unnecessary.  Therefore, the dictionary was abridged to include only Watson=s theological definitions.

Watson rejected the rationalism formulated in German schools.  He affirmed the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture.  He held that it was legitimate to use reason in sorting out textual variants and in interpreting the meaning of the text, but once the text was established and understood - revelation takes priority over reason.  Regarding the assurance of personal salvation, Watson comes out clearing as embracing the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit.

Watson held that Genesis 1-3 were to be accepted as a literal account and that the flood was universal.  While his article on Arianism might be thought obsolete, actually his refutation of Arianism will also work against Jehovah's Witnesses.   Watson had an adequate grasp of the Trinity and dealt with early Church heresies concerning the nature of Christ.  At one point in his ministry, Watson even had to correct Adam Clarke on the eternal sonship of Christ.

Watson contended for the virgin birth of Christ and dealt extensively with the atonement.  Included are articles on atonement, expiation, propitiation, and sacrifice.  Watson is most helpful in his analysis of Calvinism.  Included is a 15-page account of the Synod of Dort which shows the intolerance and injustice with which Arminians were treated.  Watson's definition of such terms as: calling, election, foreknowledge, necessity, predestination, reprobation, will, and vocation are Arminian.

Watson rejected such doctrines as universalism and annihilationism, which have been embraced by some liberal Arminians of our day.  Watson's vigorous denunciation of Roman Catholicism reflects the view of the Reformers.   In a day when the only sin is intolerance and evangelicals are compromising with Rome, Watson's emphasis will come as a surprise to some who do not have the true facts.

While holding to a historical approach to the interpretation of prophetic passages, Watson's greatest strength regarding eschatology is his optimism that the kingdom of Christ will prevail.  

Richard Watson was one of the greatest theologians the Church has ever known. Although he is fallible, the chief value of this dictionary is its refutation of Calvinism.  Whoever defines the terms, controls the debate.  Watson's definitions and historical accounts, his exegesis and citation of primary sources will strengthen this generation of ill-equipped Arminians to defend their faith. 

It is the desire of Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers that this new edition will make available to a new generation the warm evangelical scholarship of early Methodism.  Hardbound, 560 pages, $49.95.