Wesley Center Online
Issue 1, Spring 2002, Volume 20
Issue 1, Spring 2002, Volume 20
Vic Reasoner
Romans 8:28-30 traces God’s realized purpose through the order in which it was accomplished. Each verb in this order of salvation is in the aorist tense, which refers to completed action. Yet God’s plan may be aborted at any point, just as the six steps of human responsibility in Romans 10:14-17 or the sequence of Romans 5:3-5.
We have a choice and we must continually submit to his purpose. Paul "speaks as one looking back from the goal, upon the race of faith," wrote Wesley. Final salvation is reviewed from finish to start, as seen from God’s perspective.
While the plan of salvation is certain, the security of the believer is conditional. It cannot be inferred that all who start will finish. Rather, those who do finish will go through this sequence. Wesley explained that Paul "does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings, that precisely the same number of persons are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off, between his special calling and his glorification. Neither does he deny that many are called who are never justified. He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads us, step by step, toward heaven."
Yet from the time of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s son-in-law, these five verbs of Romans 8:28-30 were considered to be an unbreakable chain. God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. In 1591 William Perkins wrote A Golden Chain, which was dedicated to Theodore Beza and which contained "the order of the causes of Salvation and Damnation." This book traced the order of salvation from the eternal decrees to the final consummation of all things. The doctrine of double predestination was central. Perkins claimed to defend the Calvinist doctrine that "he hath ordained all men to a certain and everlasting estate: that is, either to salvation or condemnation, for his own glory."
As early as 1612 Arminius rebutted this logical chain of Perkins. Perkins had claimed that the failure of the believer to persevere meant his faith was only temporary and therefore he was not elect. Arminius argued that his own doctrine was effectively no different from Perkins; that the believer can really "fall from that very grace wherewith God embraces him unto life eternal" [Works, 3:460]. According to both Perkins and Arminius, if the believer does not persevere, such a person proves to be non-elect. The difference is that Perkins taught that believers persevere because they were elected. Arminius taught that God elects believers whom he foresees will persevere. Thus, the logical chain is not deterministic.
Colin Williams wrote that Wesley’s emphasis on the doctrine of prevenient grace broke "the chain of logical necessity" which seemed to be the inevitable consequence of the doctrine of original sin. In his debates with unconditional predestination, Wesley most often employed this concept of preliminary, enabling grace.
Yet while Calvinists have continued to teach that Romans 8:28-30 constitutes a golden chain, which cannot be broken, by their own definition the chain actually has only one link.
First, they conflate foreknowledge with predestination. Fredrick Godet explained that if "foreknowledge" meant to destine beforehand, then foreknowledge would have the same meaning as "predestinate" in v 30. The particle "also" would not then carry the implication of a gradation from one level to the next.
John Murray attempted to salvage the Calvinistic presupposition by declaring that there was a distinction between the two words. Murray said that while foreknowledge means to choose, "it does not inform us of the destination to which those thus chosen are appointed." According to Murray, predestined supplies this lacking information. Yet it is preposterous to advocate that God would choose without any purpose in mind. Murray has not avoided the conclusion that both words amount to the same thing, if the Calvinistic definition is accepted.
Second, James Montgomery Boice declared that God’s call is an irrevocable covenant. In his commentary on Romans 11:29, Boice wrote that "call" is synonymous with predestination or election. The third link in the golden chain was God’s calling. Now it is also conflated, so that whether the word used is foreknowledge, predestination, election, or calling, the meaning is still deterministic.
Third, John Murray wrote in Redemption Accomplished and Applied that it makes little difference whether the effectual call or regeneration comes first. Logically, the elect were saved when in the counsel of God he decreed their selection. Faith, then is the revelation of that election and it comes after regeneration. Thus, the third and fourth links, calling and justification, are conflated. J. Agar Beet raised a valid question when he asked if salvation was by faith or by decree. He wrote,
Some have supposed that, although salvation is proclaimed for all who believe, God has secretly resolved to bestow only upon a portion of the race selected by Himself those influences without which repentance and faith are impossible. If so, salvation is limited, not really by man’ s unbelief, but by God’s eternal purpose.
Finally, since the Calvinistic teaching on the perseverance of the saints affirms that final salvation or glorification, the fifth link, is unconditionally assured for those who are justified, the fourth and fifth links are conflated.
Thus, in reality, for Calvinists the golden chain has only one link. Salvation is by decree; predestined for the elect. Nor is there any golden chain of salvation for the reprobate. Only an iron padlock.
A. J. Smith
Have you ever heard people bemoan the fact that they did not know whether they were saved or not I want to state that all who are truly born again have a conscious knowledge of it. It is clear from Scripture that the people who lived and pleased God in Bible times had a conscious knowledge of the fact that they were in a state of divine favor. In Hebrews 11:4 we read, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness [or evidence] that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts." Here was a man, although without a Bible, to whom God imparted the consciousness that He was pleased with him and that his gifts were acceptable.
In the same chapter, the fifth verse speaks of Enoch. "Before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Please notice that he had the evidence that he pleased God before his translation. Some people claim that you cannot know that you are saved until after you are dead, but it is too late then to find out you are unsaved. We must know it now.
From Abel down through to the present day, God has invariably given His attestation to those who pleased and obeyed Him. If there were no other Scripture verses in the Bible besides the ones just given and Romans 8:16, there would be enough evidence to prove that the Bible teaches an assurance of salvation in this life for God’s people. John Wesley stated,
By the testimony of the Spirit, I mean an inward impression of the soul, whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God; that "Jesus hath loved me, and given Himself for me;" that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.
The question has been asked, "Do you feel saved after you are saved" In other words, are we conscious of it when God forgives us What good would a pardon do the sinner if he did not feel it or were not conscious of it Yes, we feel saved after we are saved. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" (Rom 8:1). Right feelings always follow the right faith.
The assurance of salvation or the witness of the Spirit is given to eliminate doubt. Uncertainty generates despair and anxiety. One of the chief sources of anxiety may be discovered in the superficial sanctity of those who are always doubting their acceptance with God. If people are right with God and are walking in the light, doubt cannot remain. But if there is a wrong to be righted in your life and you have not done it, you will have and you should have doubts. That doubt represents the voice of the Holy Spirit to you. Do not ignore it at the peril of your soul. Confess the sin, right the wrong, and doubt will take wings. When light comes in, darkness goes out. When faith comes in, doubt goes out.
It is a serious mistake for Christian workers to try to make seekers feel happy before God has given them the evidence of his pardon. If such workers succeed in persuading seekers to believe they are saved before the Holy Spirit had added His testimony, they deceive them. How careful we need to be not to interfere with the work of the Holy Spirit. How it must grieve the Spirit when professional altar workers go about with an air of self-satisfaction and pride, telling how many souls they helped to get saved. They only helped them get them "through" to a state of self-deception.
The Holy Spirit never witnesses to an untruth, for "He is the Spirit of truth." The assurance of salvation brings with it a divine revelation. The Bible does not tell us when we are born again. The Bible points us in the way to Christ, but the impartation of the knowledge or consciousness that we are saved is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is something supernatural. You cannot do it yourself. Your friends cannot do it for you. The pastor, evangelist, or personal worker cannot tell you when you are saved. If you are hungry for what I am talking about, pray on, dear heart, God will not disappoint you if you are faithful.
Editorial Note: This article was adapted from a three-part article first published at Greensboro, NC in "The People's Herald" in July-September, 1948. Although Dr. Smith died in 1960, the Fundamental Wesleyan Society, to a large extent, is a continuation of his ministry and emphasis. See the entree concerning him in the Historical Dictionary of the Holiness Movement, William C. Kostlevy, ed. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2001), p. 235.
ARMINIUS, THE SCAPEGOAT OF CALVINISM, PART 3
Vic Reasoner
In an essay entitled "What is an Arminian" John Wesley raised this question, "How can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings" Wesley proceeded to offer this advice, "Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means."
Wesley said Arminianism was usually charged with five errors:
1. they deny original sin
2. they deny justification by faith
3. they deny absolute predestination
4. they deny the grace of God to be irresistible
5. they affirm a believer may fall from grace
Wesley said that Arminians pleaded "not guilty" to the first two charges. In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity" ["Original Sin," Sermon #44, III.1]. Concerning justification he also wrote that he thought just as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth" [Journal, 14 May, 1765].
Concerning the third charge, though, there is an undeniable difference between Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists believe absolute predestination; Arminians believe in conditional predestination. Wesley explained that Calvinists hold that God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity to save the elect and no others. Christ died for these and none else. Arminians, on the other hand, hold that God has decreed, from all eternity, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned." In order to make this possible, "Christ died for all."
Wesley said the last two points are the natural consequence of the third. Calvinists hold that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it than to resist the stroke of lightning. But if predestination is conditional, then grace is not irresistible. Most of the popular "Bible teachers" today accept the premise of Arminius, but the conclusion of Calvin.
Finally, Calvinists hold that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. Arminians hold, however, that a true believer may make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Not only may he fall into gross sin, but he may fall so as to perish forever.
So, Wesley concluded, in effect the three final questions hinge upon one, Is predestination absolute or conditional Wesley's objection to Calvinism is based upon his objection to their doctrine of predestination.
John Wesley closed the essay in which he defines an Arminian with a caution against using labels and calling names. He said it was the duty of every Arminian preacher to never in public or private to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach. And it is equally the duty of every Calvinist preacher to never in public or in private, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach [Works, 10:359-61].
John Fletcher wrote a tract entitled, "The Reconciliation; or, An Easy Method to Unite the People of God." This tract contains essays on "Bible Calvinism" and "Bible Arminianism." Fletcher concluded the Church needs Bible Calvinism to defeat Pharisaism and she needs Bible Arminianism to defeat antinomianism [Works, 2:283-363]. While Fletcher may have been too optimistic about how "easy" this unity would be to attain, yet he understood the need for balance.
When John Wesley, the Armianian, preached the funeral of George Whitefield, the Calvinist, he said there was a trait Whitefield exemplified which was not common. Wesley said he had a "catholic spirit." He loved all, of whatever opinion, mode of worship, or denomination who believed in the Lord Jesus, loved God and man, delighted in pleasing God and feared offending Him, who was careful to abstain from evil and zealous of good works ["On the Death of George Whitefield," Sermon #53, III.7].
Wesley recorded in his Journal for December 20, 1784 that he had the satisfaction of meeting Charles Simeon. However, it was Simeon who preserved the account of that conversation.
Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. . . . Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart
Yes, says the veteran, I do indeed. And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ
Yes, solely through Christ. But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works
No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last. Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power
No. What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms
Yes, altogether. And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom
Yes, I have no hope but in Him. Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.
Across their ministry both Arminius and Wesley patiently denied that they were heretics, but confessed agreement with historic Christianity and the great ecumenical church councils. Arminius declared, "If any one will point out an error in this my opinion, I will gladly own it: Because it is possible for me to err, but I am not willing to be a heretic." Wesley also issued this appeal,
Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated upon a change of circumstances. Point me out a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture ["Preface" to Wesley's Sermons, 9].
These men were not heretics, but reformers. Their authority was the Word of God. As we contend for their doctrine, let us also exemplify their spirit with a quiet confidence that the Spirit of Truth is able to convince men. Mildred Wynkoop wrote, "One of Wesley's concerns was that there was something biblically defective about the Calvinism of his day. But his polemic was doctrinal, never personal. It was fearless and forceful, but never bitter. This 'break' with Calvinism was not a break in Christian fellowship but a correction of what he believed to be a false interpretation of Scripture."
Today we still share Wesley's concern that the doctrine of absolute predestination "is not only false, but a very dangerous doctrine, as we have seen a thousand times" [Letter to Lady [Maxwell], 30 Sept, 1788]. Yet we cannot legislate correct doctrine through force. Nor will we win the debate through name-calling and misrepresentation. Our task is to set the standard of consistent biblical interpretation. May God enable us to teach the Scriptures with integrity — regardless of what pejorative terms we are called. [This is an edited version of an address given on Sept 27, 1998 at the Conference on the Believer’s Security. Cassette tapes of this message may be ordered from Dan Corner at
THE SOVEREIGN CHRIST: Reflections on John 1:1-18
Joseph D. McPherson
To all who have a vital and living faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, great comfort may be taken in the fact that from the very beginning He, the Logos or Christ, has governed the universe. From the beginning He has regulated His Church. Yes, we read of an Old Testament Church as well as that of the present dispensation. When Stephen was giving answer to his accusers in Acts 7:37-38, he refers to Moses who "said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he," continues Stephen, "that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us."
We can be assured therefore that from the beginning, the Logos or Christ has been governing the universe. From the beginning the Logos or Christ has been regulating His Church. From the beginning the Logos or Christ spoke by His prophets. And He often appeared as the angel or messenger of Jehovah to the patriarchs. We may be tempted to think that the universe, or our nation is out of control politically. We may be tempted to believe that the Church in our day is without divine regulation. However, let us take heart and know that the incarnate Christ is yet in control of it all. We only have to make sure while serving Him in His Church that we live and operate according to His revealed plan and will. He is sure to govern and regulate aright. He is even pleased to use us in it. Let us be encouraged while in the work of the Master who is the incarnate and eternal Christ. He and those who abide in Him shall prevail at last.
Shared by Robert Miller at a preacher’s conference at Liverpool in August 1820.
The first time I had the pleasure of being in company with the Rev. John Wesley was in the year 1783. I asked him what must be done to keep Methodism alive when he was dead: to which he immediately answered, "The Methodists must take heed to their doctrine, their experience, their practice, and their discipline. If they attend to their doctrines only, they will make the people antinomians; if to the experimental part of religion only, they will make them enthusiasts; if to the practical part only, they will make them Pharisees; and if they do not attend to their discipline, they will be like persons who bestow much pains in cultivating their garden, and put no fence round it, to save it from the wild boar of the forest."
Rupert Davies, A. Raymond George, Gordon Rupp, eds, A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain (London: Epworth Press, 1998), 4:194.
I am convinced that many evangelicals are not truly and soundly converted. Among the evangelicals it is entirely possible to come into membership, to ooze in by osmosis, to leak through the cells of the church and never know what it means to be born of the Spirit and washed in the blood. A great deal that passes for the deeper life is nothing more or less than basic Christianity. There is nothing deeper about it, and it is where we should have been from the start. We should have been happy, joyous, victorious Christians walking in the Holy Spirit and not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. Instead we have been chasing each other around the perpetual mountain.
What we need is what the old Methodists called a sound conversion. There is a difference between conversion and a sound conversion. People who have never been soundly converted do not have the Spirit to enlighten them. When they read the Sermon on the Mount or the teaching passages of the epistles that tell them how to live or the doctrinal passages that tell how they can live, they are unaffected. The Spirit who wrote them is not witnessing in their hearts because they have not been born of the Spirit. That often happens.
People clean up, throw away their pipes, start to pay their bills and live right and then say, "I want to join the church." So we question them, "Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God"
"Yes," they reply.
"Do you believe He rose from the dead"
"Yes."
"Do you believe He is coming again"
"Yes, I do."
Well, so does the devil and he trembles.
People get into the church who are not converted at all. We are so tenderhearted, sentimental and eager that we get them on any grounds at all, if they just say the right words for us. But maybe some of these people have never been converted in the first place.
A. W. Tozer, Ruin, Rot or Revival (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992).
REVIEWS, PREVIEWS, and REPRINTS
Have you walked away from a Christian bookstore grieved over the superficial, and sometimes heretical, literature which is marketed Christian publishing sells $4 billion annually. But take away the pop-psychology-self-help-feel-good books, the end-times fiction, the celebrity biography, and the opportunist author trying to capitalize on current events, and the average Christian book store would be left with little besides romance novels. We have become a generation of believers who are doctrinally illiterate and historically unaware of our roots. Yet the history of the Christian Church is dotted with classics from every time period.
Of the eight books described in this section, only one might be available at your local Christian bookstore. None, beside DeMar ’s book, are mass marketed in the United States. Yet all are worthy of your attention, if you are serious about understanding your faith. Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers operates as a nonprofit ministry. We receive no financial compensation for advertizing the first seven books. We promote them because we believe in their message. Any money recovered from the sale of the forthcoming commentary, described last, will be put into the printing of more Wesleyan-Arminian literature.
REVIEWS:
Sufficient Saving Grace: John Wesley’s Evangelical Arminianism, Herbert Boyd McGonigle, (Paternoster, 2001), 352 pages. Not available in the U. S. through Eerdmans; order through sources in the U. K.
McGonigle demonstrates that the English rejection of Calvinism predates any influence of Arminius. Tracts written against the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination appeared as early as the mid-sixteenth century by such men as Henry Hart and John Trewe, who died before Arminius was ever born. The Anglican Articles, first framed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1553, did not reflect a Calvinistic viewpoint regarding free will or predestination. In 1595, William Barrett challenged the writings of William Perkins, by asserting that the only cause of reprobation is God’s foreknowledge of sin and that the believer’s perseverance is conditioned by personal faith.
Richard Baxter’s defense of the universal atonement was published after his death in 1696 and John Goodwin wrote a similar defense in 1651 without having first read Arminius. The first translation of any of the writings of Arminius appeared in England in 1657.
Although Dr. Samuel Annesley, the father of Susanna Wesley was a convinced Calvinist, both Susanna and Samuel Wesley were anti-Calvinists. John Wesley reflected the same opposition to Calvinism long before he became acquainted with the writings of Arminius. Wesley’ s fifty-volume, A Christian Library, compiled between 1749-1755 does not contain any writings from Arminius or the Dutch Remonstrants.
It was not until Joseph Benson was dismissed by Lady Huntingdon in 1771, when she declared that "every Arminian must quit" and Fletcher also resigned as president of Trevecka College, that Wesley began to openly defend the doctrine of Arminius and thereby declared himself to be an Arminian. Although Wesley owed little of his theological understanding to Arminius, Wesley embraced his writings when he became better acquainted with them. Thus, in 1788 Wesley began the monthly Arminian Magazine, which he edited until his death.
McGonigle, however, defines Wesley as an evangelical Arminian, in distinction to the later Remonstrants who denied original sin. Nor was he identified with the reaction against irresistible grace with the Roman Catholic Church. Wesley was not a Latitudinarian Arminian, either. This term describes the sacramentalist theology which had developed within the Anglican Church. Finally, Wesley was not Arminian in the derogatory sense that the term was used to describe the reductionistic theologies of radical theologians whose teachings diminished the atonement of Christ through Arian or Socinian tenancies. McGongile wrote that Wesley "sifted from this Arminianism all lingering traces of Pelagianism, humanism, and rationalism."
While Wesley has been accused of misrepresenting the Calvinists of his day, McGonigle demonstrates that Wesley was acquainted with the standard Calvinistic writings and that his representation of them was "close and exact." McGonigle concludes that Wesley opposed predestination primarily because he saw it as a barrier to holy living. According to Wesley, the chief enemy to be feared was antinomianism. If Wesley could revisit the contemporary situation we find ourselves in today, his worst fears would certainly be confirmed.
End Times Fiction, Gary DeMar (Thomas Nelson, 2001), 232 pages, $14.99
Earlier this year the Left Behind series topped the 50 million mark in sales. Everyone who has read the Left Behind series owes it to himself to read a critique which explains in simple terms why there is no biblical basis for the basic premise of the books. Nowhere does the Bible teach a pretribulation rapture of the Church which occurs seven years before Christ returns. If there is no pretrib rapture, then no one is left behind.
DeMar demonstrates in this book that the biblical passages referring to the general resurrection cannot be used to prove a special rapture of the Church. The assumption of a seven-year gap between the two returns of Christ, in which all of the Left Behind books take place, is based upon a mistaken interpretation of Daniel’s Seventh Week. DeMar devotes ten pages to explain that these seventy weeks do not contain a two thousand-year gap.
Then DeMar devotes some forty pages to a verse-by-verse explanation of Matthew 24, the Olivet Discourse. Although Jesus spends much of the chapter explaining the destruction of the temple and the circumstances surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in A. D. 70, LaHaye and Jenkins, in the Left Behind series, operate from the premise that this all refers to the second coming of Christ.
In all, DeMar examines ten major components of the pretrib rapture theory, showing no only the lack of biblical support, but also showing that leading dispensational authors often contradict each other.
Ironically, in light of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, they also sue each other. Tim LaHaye is suing the makers of "Left Behind: The Movie." Also named in the lawsuit is Cloud Ten Pictures, the Canadian production company run by brothers Peter and Paul Lalonde, that was hired by Namesake to make the movie version of the first book in the series. Apparently one of the sore spots was the poor quality of "Left Behind: The Movie." But the movie quality only reflected the poorly written books. And with almost $100 million in royalties, apparently quantity is more important than either quality or biblical accuracy. Perhaps this is why LaHaye refuses to debate the issues in a public forum.
In a review of #9, Desecration, David Kipen concluded, "The main problem with Desecration is that the thriller form and fundamental Christianity just don’t mix. One is based on suspense, the other on predestination."
Calvinism Calmly Considered, Two Volumes, John Wesley (Schmul Publishers, 2001-2).
In Volume 10 of the Thomas Jackson edition of The Works of John Wesley there are twenty essays which deal with some aspect of Calvinism. Some of these were reviews or reactions to Calvinistic works of that period with which we have little interest. Curtis Hale has reprinted eleven which have a broader significance in Calvinism Calmly Considered.
Volume one of Calvinism Calmly Considered has five essays, opening with "What Is an Arminian" — essay #23. Chapter 2 is "Thoughts upon God’s Sovereignty," essay #24 in the Jackson edition. Then the longer essay, "Predestination Calmly Considered," has been broken into eighteen chapters. Alan Sell called this the most important of all Wesley’s anti-Calvinistic publications. The last two chapters in this book are "A Dialogue between a Predestinarian and His Friend," — essay #13 and "The Consequence Proved," — essay #14, a short reaction to Augustus Toplady.
Hale wrote, "Calvinism Calmly Considered is a compilation of books John Wesley wrote, placed in a logical progression and broken down into smaller chapters for ease of readability. However, no other changes have been made. The sections of the book deal with God's Sovereignty, Predestination and Free Will." This 96-page book sells for $6.99.
Volume two deals with justification, imputed righteousness, law and grace, and perseverance. This 58-page book, which sells for $5.99, contains six more essays: "A Blow at the Root," — essay #25, the two dialogues between an Antinomian and his Friend, — essays #15-16, "Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints," — essay #17, "Thoughts Upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," — essay #20, and "The Conditions of Justification," a new name given to a letter Wesley wrote.
Hopefully, someday the illusive project of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley will include everything Wesley wrote on Calvinism, including three essays not even in the Jackson edition, "Serious Consideration on Absolute Predestination," "Serious Considerations of the Doctrines of Election and Reprobation," and "The Scripture Doctrine Concerning Predestination, Election and Reprobation."
We owe editor Curtis Hale and Schmul Publishers a debt of thanks for making available, in an inexpensive format, the heart of what Wesley wrote concerning Calvinism. Visit their web site at <wesleyanbooks.com>
The Glory of the House of God, Joseph Benson (Schmul Publishers, 2002).
Adam Clarke described Joseph Benson (1748-1821) as "a sound scholar, a powerful and able preacher, and a profound theologian." Sermons of his were first published in 1781. By 1802 twenty of his sermons were gathered together in Sermons on Various Occasions, and Most of them on the Principal Subjects of Genuine Christianity. This volume went through five printings and two editions. A selection of eight sermons from this twenty sermon volume was published around 1817. This volume omitted twelve sermons from the larger one-volume edition, including a sermon on the second coming of Christ, the character of those who shall be condemned by Christ at his coming, two sermons on the future misery of the wicked, two sermons on the nativity of Christ, a sermon on the deity of Christ, "Principles and Practice of the Sect Every Where Spoken Against" (which defends Methodism), three funeral sermons of obscure names, and a funeral eulogy of John Wesley. This sermon, "The Life and Labors of the Late Rev. John Wesley" was reprinted in The Wesley Workbook, Robert L. Brush and Vic Reasoner, eds. (Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers, 1996).
After Benson’s death a seven-volume set, Sermons, and Plans of Sermons on Many of the Most Important Texts of Holy Scripture, edited by Jabez Bunting, was published, but this set is hard to locate. Thankfully, we now again have access to eight Benson sermons. This reprint carries the title of the first sermon, The Glory of the House of God, and sells for $10.99. Call Schmul Publishers at 800-772-6657.
Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement, John Goodwin, edited by John D. Wagner (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 237 pages.
Like Arminius himself, Goodwin was raised a Calvinist. While preparing lectures to refute Arminianism, he ultimately adopted Arminian theology while remaining a Puritan. Wesley published an exposition of Romans 9 by John Goodwin in a 1780 issue of the Arminian Magazine. Wesley’s abridgement of Goodwin’s Treatise on Justification also appears in volume ten of the Jackson edition of Wesley’s Works. This is an edited and abridged version of a classic which was first published in 1651. Reference was made to this work in the McGonigle review. The bulk of this work is dedicated to defending the position that Christ died for all mankind and refuting the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. The book sells for $22 and may be ordered through any Internet book distributor. ISBN 1-57910-591-2
Wesley’s Designated Successor, Luke Tyerman (Tentmaker Publications, 2001).
In a recent book, R. K. McGregor Wright wrote that John Fletcher was "a capable and gentlemanly fellow Anglican, whose writings show a kind spirit, but no real understanding of Calvinistic thought" [No Place for Sovereignty, p. 33]. However, Wesley told of a Calvinist who said he never read Fletcher’s writings, "For if I did, I should be of his mind." Fletcher, who received his education in Geneva, certainly read more of Calvin than Calvin’s followers have ever read of Fletcher.
Phil Roberts of Tentmaker Publications in the United Kingdom has done a limited reprint of this classic biography of John Fletcher. Last printed in 1882, this hardback edition runs 606 pages. Contact him at
FORTHCOMING:
A Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans, Vic Reasoner (Evansville, IN: Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers, 2002), approximately 475 pages. From the Preface:
Although God has promised times of refreshing (Acts 3:20), if God blessed the nominal Church in its present state he would only be perpetuating error. Therefore we must have a reformation before revival comes. A. W. Tozer warned, "To beg for a flood of blessing to come upon a backslidden and disobedient Church is to waste time and effort. . . . Unless we intend to reform we may as well not pray." More recently, David Wells concluded, "We need reformation rather than revival. The habits of the modern world, now so ubiquitous in the evangelical world, need to be put to death, not given new life. They need to be rooted out, not simply papered over with fresh religious enthusiasm."
God will not continue to bless any organization which slights His holy Word. The path of reformation always leads back to the Word. There must be a return to the preaching of biblical doctrine. The Wesleyan revival of the eighteenth century was such a reformation. It was nothing more than a rediscovery of apostolic Christianity. Wesley distinguished between what was generally called Christianity and Methodism, "the true old Christianity." Because we again stand in need of this same distinction to be made, the comments and sermons from those early Methodists need to be preserved and published as signposts for a new generation. Reference will be freely made to their writings in this commentary.
While some might object that comments upon the scriptural text should be free from the history of their interpretation, we do not think in a vacuum nor do we have many original ideas. Others might feel that the particular text of scripture should be explained without any attempt to systematize that particular truth with the larger body of truth. But the fact that a particular interpretation fits the broader analogy of faith strongly suggests that the interpretation advanced for that particular verse is accurate. Still others may argue that comments upon scripture should be objective and free from any doctrinal system. But every commentator has his presuppositions, whether stated or not. I am simply relating that in over a quarter century of weekly sermon preparation I have found the classic Methodist commentators to have the purest understanding of truth.
I will cite from the founder of Methodism, John Wesley’s brief Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (1754). I will also refer frequently to Adam Clarke, the famous Methodist commentator, who knew some twenty languages and was probably the most able English biblical scholar of his time. His Commentary was published between 1810 and 1825. Richard Watson, the first systematic theologian of Methodism, died before completing his commentary on Romans. An Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark (1833) contains his exposition of Romans up to 3:25. However, his Conversations for the Young contains a sixteen-page overview of the entire book of Romans.
Less known is the commentary of Joseph Benson, published between 1810-15. Milton S. Terry said Benson’s comments were "less critical and learned, but more practical" than Clarke’s. Thomas Coke, sent to America by Wesley as the first superintendent in 1784, also produced a six-volume commentary between 1801-3. And Joseph Sutcliffe produced a two-volume commentary in 1834.
I will also refer to Daniel D. Whedon’s commentary on Romans, published in 1871. Whedon served as editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review from 1856-84. J. Agar Beet’s commentary on Romans first appeared in 1877. The People’s New Testament, authored by Amos Binney and proofed by his son-in-law, Daniel Steele, was published in 1879. Thomas O. Summers was editor of the publishing house of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South and was first professor of theology at Vanderbilt University. His commentary on Romans appeared in 1881.
These men can each make a valuable contribution to our understanding of Scripture. But above all, we must allow the Bible to speak to us. While we should hesitate to adopt any interpretation which runs against Church tradition, experience, and reason, yet Scripture alone is authoritative. Wesley wrote, "I receive the written Word as the whole and sole rule of my faith." Concerning Romans 1, Thomas Coke said, "The picture which the apostle has drawn of the manners of the Greeks, is by no means aggravated. It was given by the unerring inspiration of the Holy Ghost."
Yet much of the scholarship of the twentieth century was based upon higher critical presuppositions that the Bible was nothing more than a book of human origins. Perhaps that is why expositional preaching has once again fallen into disfavor.
It is also a tragedy that those who claim to be "contenders for the faith" and hold a high view of inspiration, rarely preach expositionally. Until our thinking has been transformed by God’s Word, we do not have a message. Yet it takes time to prepare expositional sermons which are doctrinally sound. Many pastors are not "full-time" and sermon preparation is only one of many responsibilities that cry out for more time. I know what it is to work late Saturday night or early Sunday morning on a sermon after having worked all week to provide for my family. Often the bi-vocational pastor struggles to counter the false teaching of the radio preacher or the television evangelist who seems to have unlimited time and money with which to lead people astray.
Although I interact with historic Calvinism, as well as its modern variations, I expect that my conclusions will be dismissed by them with a condescending explanation that I did not understand. Yet it can hardly be claimed that James Arminius, John Goodwin, Richard Watson, and Thomas O. Summers failed to grasp Calvinism. At one time they each embraced it. Arminius, himself, studied in Geneva under Theodore Beza, Calvin’s son-in-law. Yet each of these four men abandoned Calvinism as they continued to compare it with Scripture. While Calvinism holds to sole authority of Scripture, yet they frequently assert that the truths of "sovereign grace" must be revealed, almost as a second conversion. Usually that "conversion" is from a superficial Arminianism which they did not adequately understand. Along with Calvinism, I accept the inerrancy, the sufficiency, and the full authority of Scripture. Along with Calvinists, I interpret the Word of God using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. But I do not arrive at their conclusions. Nor have I received any extrabiblical revelations, although I do have the assurance described in Romans 8:16 that I am a child of God.
Technical commentaries sometimes replace the bread of life with a stone. Popular commentaries, which only treat the text superficially, are inadequate for those who hold, with Christ, that the very words of Scripture are inspired (Matt 5:18). Currently there are few conservative, analytical Wesleyan commentaries in print. Therefore The Fundamental Wesleyan Bible Commentaries are written from the conviction that we must preach the Word and contend for the faith. We accept the Bible as God’s revelation of truth. It is living and powerful. May God grant that our faithful preaching of his Word will also be alive and anointed by the same Spirit who originally inspired it.
