This week, let’s look at Spurgeon’s denial of God’s active role in the damnation of his enemies. This quote comes from an article by Marc D. Carpenter, entitled “Unconditional Reprobation and Active Hardening: A Study on Romans 9:11-22”.

=========================================================================

It is a given that Arminians hate the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. But it might surprise the reader that most Calvinists hate this doctrine as well. They will claim to love unconditional election, yet when it comes to reprobation, they turn into conditionalists. They say that God reprobates a person based on something in the person. They say that God reprobated Esau based on something in Esau. And who better to represent and articulate this heretical notion than the most popular Calvinist himself, Charles H. Spurgeon? The following are quotes from Spurgeon’s sermon entitled “Jacob and Esau“:

“But now the second point of my subject is, WHY IS THIS? Why did God love Jacob? why did he hate Esau? Now, I am not going to undertake too much at once. You say to me, ‘Why did God love Jacob? and why did he hate Esau?’ We will take one question at a time; for the reason why some people get into a muddle in theology is, because they try to give an answer to two questions. Now, I shall not do that; I will tell you one thing at a time. I will tell you why God loved Jacob; and, then, I will tell you why he hated Esau. But I cannot give you the same reason for two contradictory things. That is wherein a great many have failed. They have sat down and seen these facts, that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, that God has an elect people, and that there are others who are not elect. If, then, they try to give the same reason for election and non-election, they make sad work of it. If they will pause and take one thing at a time, and look to God’s Word, they will not go wrong. “The first question is, why did God love Jacob? I am not at all puzzled to answer this, because when I turn to the Word of God, I read this text;–’Not for your sakes, do I this saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways O house of Israel.’ I am not at a loss to tell you that it could not be for any good thing in Jacob, that God loved him, because I am told that ‘the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth.’ I can tell you the reason why God loved Jacob; It is sovereign grace. …

“Now, the next question is a different one: Why did God hate Esau? I am not going to mix this question up with the other, they are entirely distinct, and I intend to keep them so, one answer will not do for two questions, they must be taken separately, and then can be answered satisfactorily. Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly–it is the same thing–created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonour him;

“Now, let us look at Esau’s character, says one, ‘did he deserve that God should cast him away?’ I answer, he did. What we know of Esau’s character, clearly proves it. Esau lost his birthright. Do not sit down and weep about that, and blame God. Esau sold it himself; he sold it for a mess of pottage. Oh, Esau, it is in vain for thee to say, ‘I lost my birthright by decree.’ No, no. Jacob got it by decree, but you lost it because you sold it yourself–didn’t you? Was it not your own bargain? Did you not take the mess of red pottage of your own voluntary will, in lieu of the birthright? Your destruction lies at your own door, because you sold your own soul at your own bargain, and you did it yourself. Did God influence Esau to do that? God forbid, God is not the author of sin. Esau voluntarily gave up his own birthright. And the doctrine is, that every man who loses heaven gives it up himself. Every man who loses everlasting life rejects it himself. God denies it not to him–he will not come that he may have life. Why is it that a man remains ungodly and does not fear God? It is because he says, ‘I like this drink, I like this pleasure, I like this sabbath-breaking, better than I do the things of God.’ No man is saved by his own free-will, but every man is damned by it that is damned. He does it of his own will; no one constrains him.”

According to Spurgeon, Esau was damned based on his own character, deserving that God should cast him away because of what he did during his life of his own free will. The astute reader would ask how Spurgeon reconciled this view with verse 11. Spurgeon used verse 11 to show that Jacob was loved before he had done anything good or evil, but he conveniently failed to mention verse 11 when speaking of Esau. Verse 11 is talking about both children. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Spurgeon said that God loved Jacob not based on anything good in Jacob, using verse 11 to do so. He then said that God hated Esau based on the evil that Esau had done during his life. What a fool he was. And what a fool any other Calvinist is who swallows this nonsense. How plain can it be? Before the children had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. The truth is simpler than the heresy! People like Spurgeon have to go through theological contortions to wriggle out of what the Bible plainly says. And if Spurgeon and his ilk were correct in their interpretation, there would not even be a need for a verse 14 answering the objection that there is unrighteousness with God:

“What then shall we say? [Is there] not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!” (Romans 9:14).

What would be the most common objection to the truth that before Jacob had done anything good, God loved Jacob, and before Esau had done anything bad, God hated Esau? It would be that God is being unfair or unjust. People who want a god who is like them, who is in their own image, want a god who will love and hate people based on what these people do. They do not want their god to love or hate anyone until those people did something good or something bad, or at least until their god looked down through time and saw that those people did something good or something bad. To just “arbitrarily” love one person and hate another person not based on anything good or bad these people did is, to them, unfair and unjust.

Suppose Paul had said in verses 11-13 that God loved Jacob because He knew that Jacob would believe in Him and would be a good person who did good things, and God hated Esau because He knew Esau would not believe in Him and would be a bad person who would do bad things. Would there be an objection that God was not being fair or just? Of course not. In this scheme, God loved Jacob because Jacob deserved to be loved, and God hated Esau because Esau deserved to be hated. The objection would be totally meaningless. Thus, it is certain that this is not what Paul was saying in verses 11-13.

Now suppose Paul had said the following in verses 11-13: God loved Jacob because of His sovereign grace, not because of anything in Jacob, and God hated Esau for the same reason He hates any man – because Esau deserved it. God did not hate Esau unconditionally from before the foundation of the world and did not cause or even influence Esau to sin; instead, God’s hatred of Esau was because Esau was a sinner. Would there be an objection that God was not being fair or just? Absolutely not. The objection would be totally meaningless. Thus, it is certain that this is not what Paul was saying in verses 11-13. Yet most Calvinists would espouse such a view.

Not only would most Calvinists espouse such a view, but they would actually be the objectors in verse 14! Paul puts forth the objection that the heretics would bring, and Spurgeon, with like-minded Calvinists who were before and after him, along with the Arminians and the open-theists and even the agnostics and atheists, are heading the charge against the true and living God. According to Spurgeon and his ilk, if one says that God hated Esau – unconditionally reprobated Esau before Esau had done anything bad – then this would be to think meanly of God, to libel God, and to dishonor God. Why? Because it would make God to be unfair, unjust, and unrighteous, which is exactly the objection that Paul addressed. The objectors say, “Paul, if this is true that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had been born, not yet having done any good or evil, then God is unrighteous! Your God is unjust, because you put a man’s damnation into the hand of God’s sovereignty!” As Spurgeon said, “God’s sovereignty is just on the side of love; His sovereignty is not on the side of hatred.” The truth is that a partially sovereign god is not sovereign at all. Either one has God who sovereignly loves and hates, or one does not have God. The objectors do not have God. They say that to believe that God sovereignly loves and hates is to think meanly of God and to libel and dishonor Him. They say that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, libels and dishonors God. This is damnable blasphemy.

=========================================================================

For more information about the doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation, please see:

The Christian Confession of Faith

Marc D. Carpenter’s Sermon on Romans 9:14 

Marc D. Carpenter’s Sermon on Romans 9:22

“A man may be evidently of God’s chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold that there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe in the doctrine of perseverance. We hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus.” (Effects of Sound Doctrine, April 22, 1860)

Well, here’s one reason Spurgeon might have been able to draw those huge crowds: he didn’t believe that those doctrines like Unconditional Election, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance, were essential parts of the Gospel. Oh, he still believed those doctrines were true, of course, but not that they were essential to the Gospel itself. This effectively removes the offensiveness of those doctrines from the mind of the audience, an approach which is noticeably different from the approach taken by Christ and the apostles (Mat 23; Gal 6:12-14).

Let’s look a little closer at Spurgeon’s arguments.

First, are there “many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling”? The Christian Confession of Faith has this to say about all those who believe the Gospel:

3. Conversion is that grace in which the Holy Spirit causes the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. The regenerate person is given a knowledge and understanding of the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone and the realization that he was unregenerate when he believed a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. He counts all of his former life and deeds, whether religious or irreligious, as dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death. Conversion is the immediate and inevitable fruit of regeneration; therefore, a person may not be regenerated without being converted. There has never existed and will never exist a regenerate person who is ignorant of the gospel. Scripture rejects the lie that an unregenerate person can be under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit only leads people to Jesus Christ and His righteousness as the only ground of salvation. [Deu 4:34-35; Isa 45:6,20-25; Mat 13:23; Mar 16:16; Joh 6:40; 8:32; 16:8-11; 17:3; Act 16:14-15; Rom 1:16-17; 3:26; 6:17,21; 7:6; 1Co 2:10-12; 2Co 4:2-6; Eph 1:13; Phi 3:7-8; 2Th 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Jo 5:20]

Here are some of the verses that the Confession refers to:

Isa 45:(22) Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (23) I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (24) He shall say, Only in Jehovah do I have righteousness and strength; to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him. (25) In Jehovah all of the seed of Israel shall be justified, and shall glory.

Joh 6:(40) And this is the will of the One sending Me, that everyone seeing the Son and believing into Him should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 8:(32) And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Rom 6:(17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

1Co 2: (10) But God revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (11) For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God. (12) But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God.

A sinner is caused to believe the Gospel by a work of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Christ, not the sinner. Thus, it is impossible that the Holy Spirit would cause a regenerate person to believe doctrines that glorify the sinner’s role in his own salvation. Conditional Election, and Ineffectual Calling are doctrines that glorify the sinner’s role in his own salvation; therefore, it is impossible that a regenerate person would believe in Conditional Election, Ineffectual Calling, or any other doctrine that denies the Gospel, or glorifies the sinner in any way. So, contrary to Spurgeon, all who are savingly called really do believe in effectual calling.

Second, Spurgeon argues that “the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads”. Now, this head/heart distinction is simply foreign to Scripture; the heart is what thinks, plans, and meditates (Psa 4:4, Psa 77:6, Pro 16:9, Pro 23:7). But more importantly, what Spurgeon is really putting forth here is the idea that there is more to the Gospel than merely knowledge or doctrine, and that this something more is what really separates the saved from the lost. Notice that Spurgeon makes precisely zero effort to define what that something more actually is, but apparently it cannot possibly be doctrine. This of course, is completely anti-Scriptural:

Joh 7: (16) Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but of the One who sent Me. (17) If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or I speak from Myself.

Rom 6:(17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Rom 10:(1) Brothers, truly my heart’s pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. (2) For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. (4) For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone that believes.

2Jo (9) Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son.

The Gospel is pure doctrine, and nothing else but doctrine. Thus if a person believes doctrines that are contrary to the Gospel, then we do not simply assume the best about them. A Christian must judge them to be lost, and absolutely must “set their fallacies down to … wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus”.

Thus we see that Spurgeon was able to gather huge numbers of people to hear him, not in spite of the doctrine he preached, but because of his speaking peace to them, precisely when he should have been telling them that they were lost, and their deeds were evil.

“The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is extremely important, but it does not involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend on our holding either system of theology. … But, I think we are all free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitefield with equal fervor fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. … We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future or even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency of spirit, believing that we are doing God’s work and upholding most important truth.” (Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, April 11, 1861)

Here, Spurgeon makes it explicit that the element he sees as most important in judging the state of a soul is “the vital point of personal godliness”, ie. good works. Notice that at this point, Spurgeon could not even resort to the evasion that Christians are not to judge the spiritual state of others, because he has already judged the spiritual state of Wesley and his fellow Arminians: he has judged them to be saved.

“Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see the truths, or at least, cannot see them in the way in which we see them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.” (The Man With the Measuring Line, December 11, 1864)

I have already had much to say about the “personal godliness” of John Wesley, but even if his “personal godliness” were as sterling as Spurgeon makes it out to be, he would still be judging Wesley by the wrong standard. The correct standard is doctrine, specifically the doctrine of the Gospel. Without that standard, there is really no limit to the kinds of people Spurgeon could speak peace to:

“In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest — for I believe he is a good man, — preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling the text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, — some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus. I saw, in that church, a box for contributions for the Pope; he will never grow rich with what I put into it.” (The Proceedings of the Great Meeting in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, August 21, 1860)

Here is the logical conclusion of Spurgeon’s wicked practice of speaking peace to anyone with a form of “personal godliness”. Yes, Spurgeon denounces certain “objectionable sentences” coming from “the strong wind of Popery”, but no actual papists. This is as uncertain a sound as it is possible to make (1Co 14:8), and it all comes down to Spurgeon’s unwillingness to judge according to doctrine.

=========================================================================

For more information about the Gospel as the standard for Right Judgment, please see:

Righteous Judgment

Some Form of Perfectionism?

Speaking Peace to God-Haters

Essential Gospel Doctrine

=========

Des –

I’m not trying to ‘help’ anyone. I am proclaiming the Gospel to people who are lost. Ken began this correspondence by sending out an e-mail that promoted a false gospel. No matter if he thinks he has the truth, what he is really peddling is LIES. The same goes for Anthony Buzzard; he is a blind leader of the blind.

If you “will never argue with anyone concerning truth”, then you need to think about Jude 3-4. Further, if you do not believe the Gospel, then you are lost as well, and therefore definitely NOT my brother in Christ. Here is the definition of the Gospel given in the Christian Confession of Faith:
1. The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts. It reveals the righteousness of God – how God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. The gospel is not merely the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, considered apart from the purpose of these truths, which were accomplished to establish a righteousness for all whom Jesus represented.[Gen 15:5-6; Psa 103:2-12; 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:5-8,13-25; 10:4,15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 5:21; Eph 1:3-2:22; 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1,9-10; Heb 10:4-17]
If this is not the Gospel you believe, then I urge you to consider the Scripture references, repent, and believe the Gospel.

If Ken doesn’t wish to continue this conversation, fine. He can come back anytime he’s willing to start talking about Scripture, instead of his own traditions and preconceived notions.

Anthony –

I notice you completely failed to discuss the one Scripture reference I asked you about. If you can’t do that, why should any of us take you seriously at all?

Here is the section I’m referring to:

Anthony, you are lost, and a blind leader of the blind. Repent and believe the Gospel.

Chris Adams.

=========

Ken –

I have put your words in red for readability. You wrote: “Jesus pontificated and I am repeating his words.“

Really? WHERE? You have yet to cite a single Scripture reference to me. Just SAYING you have cited Scripture doesn’t mean you DID cite any Scriptures.

And you responded “——Actually Jesus and I are both right in the context of Jewish mentality. “

The Jewish mentality? Here is the reaction that the Jews had to Jesus’ statement in Joh 8:58:

(Joh 8:59) Because of this, they took up stones that they might throw them on Him. But Jesus was hidden, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

And how would the ‘Jewish mentality’ have understood the phrase “the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world”?

Also, don’t forget this display of the ‘Jewish mentality’ from John ch. 10:

(Joh 10:30-33) I and the Father are one! Then again the Jews took up stones, that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from My Father. For which work of them do you stone Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God.

The Jewish mentality was that they wanted a Messiah who was merely HUMAN; one who would save them from the Roman empire. The reason they wanted to stone Jesus was precisely because he WASN’T presenting that to them. He was presenting a Messiah who is God in the flesh (note the final 3 words of v. 33).

Earlier you wrote: “Finite man cannot commit infinite sin.“

In response, I wrote: “ALL sins are infinitely heinous, not because of the infinite glory of man, but because of the infinite glory of GOD. When man offends an infinite God, that sin is an infinite sin. The fact that you can’t see that shows thatyou have absolutely no understanding of God’s glory; your puny little god only needs man’s tears of repentance to be appeased. The true God of the Bible needs the blood of his only begotten Son, the divine mediator between God and Man, to appease his wrath over sin. That is why I say that you have committed blasphemy in preaching that Jesus was merely human, and not God in the flesh. With no understanding of the infinite glory of God, the infinite heinousness of sin, and the need for an infinite atonement for those sins, you show that you have no understanding of the true Gospel. You are lost, Ken, and your deeds are evil; you are dead in your sins. Repent and believe the Gospel.”

And you responded: “You are worse than a drama queen. I have not threatened you at all nor will I ever. This certainly is not the spirit of Jesus whom you claim you worship. So your telling me that sin is infinite..because God is infinite? Does that make sense. Sin my friend ends at the grave and then the judgment, hence sin cannot be infinite. Can you not even simply believe that God could forgive sin through a perfect man? Is he not called the 2nd Adam. Was the first Adam a God-man?“

First, just pause and take a moment to savor the irony of Ken Lokken calling me a drama queen. I think Marc Carpenter summed it up nicely when he wrote: “So in the course of just two months, Ken went from being in “full agreement” with the [Christian Confession of Faith] to showing that he held to time-lapse heresy to saying that he could no longer hold to time-lapse heresy but that it was not a damnable heresy to going back to being in “full agreement” with the CCF, even saying “I was blind but now I see,” yet still not admitting that he was lost when he held to time-lapse heresy, to being a universal atonement advocate. 

Third, yes, sin is infinite because God is infinite:

(Deu 27:26) Cursed is he who does not rise to all the words of this law, to do them! And all the people shall say, Amen!

(Hab 1:13) You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and You are not able to look upon vexation. Why do you look on those who deal deceitfully? Will You be silent when the wicked swallows one more righteous than he?

(Mat 5:48) Therefore, you be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

Fourth, no, sin doesn’t end at the grave:

(Mat 13:41-42) The Son of man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all the offenses, and those who practice lawlessness. And they will throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.

(Mar 9:43-44) And if your hand offend you, cut it off. For it is profitable for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go away into Hell, into the fire that cannot be put out, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not put out.

(Luk 16:23-24) And being in torments in Hell, lifting up his eyes, he sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosoms. And calling he said, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame.

(Rev 20:12-14) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and Hades gave up the dead in them. And they were each judged according to their works. And death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

Fifth, No, I cannot believe that God could forgive sin through one who is MERELY a perfect man, because mere men are finite creatures. Forgiveness of sin can ONLY come through one who ALSO partakes of the nature of God:

(Job 9:33) there is no mediator between us, who might lay his hand on both of us.

(2Co 5:21) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

(Heb 2:14-17) Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might cause to cease the one having the power of death, (that is, the Devil); and might set these free, as many as by fear of death were subject to slavery through all the time to live. For indeed He does not take hold of angels, “but He takes hold of” ” the seed of Abraham.” For this reason He ought by all means to become like His brothers, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things respecting God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of His people.

Lastly, yes, the last Adam is a God-Man:

(Joh 1:14) And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

(1Co 15:47) The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven.

(Phi 2:6-8) who subsisting in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having become in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross.

In regard to Mat 22:41-46, you wrote: “God is addressing his servant the Messiah, who is of david’s loins and yet will be David’s Lord. Look up Adonai and Adoni“

OK, here is the definition of ‘Adoni’ [Strongs #113]: “sovereign that is controller (human or divine)”. So the verse could be rephrased as “A statement of Jehovah to my [sovereign controller]: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool.” This means that David’s son is also his sovereign controller. Sorry, but you STILL can’t fit a merely human Messiah into this verse, and you STILL haven’t answered Jesus’ question (and once again, merely SAYING you have answered it doesn’t mean you DID answer it). Once again, the question is: “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”

You wrote: “Men are a little lower than the angels. Yes and Jesus was a man according to scriptures in every way. The point being this: a man sinned and brought the curse..a perfect man would die and reverse it..“

This doesn’t even begin to answer my question, which is: “If Jesus was merely human, then he was ALREADY like his brothers; so how was he “made” to be like his brothers? “

I wrote: “As for “Focus on the Kingdom”, yeah, I might have some fun refuting their nonsense.”

And your response was: “——Already you are ready to oppose others and you have not even considered their stance“

Actually, I had already been to their website. (Yes, it is nonsense.) Moreover, I have already written a pair of articles on the topic (complete with Scripture references!), so this is familiar stuff to me. Furthermore, I even quoted extensively from one of those articles, and you simply ignored it. So much for being “open minded” and “unbiased”, Ken.

And lastly, Anthony Buzzard chimed in: “I am asked to believe nonsense!   An immortal God can die! … There can be no rational discussion unless contradictions like “the immortal dies” are rejected.”

OK, Anthony, since believing that God could die is such non-sense, why don’t you answer this question that I have already brought up:

Please explain to us all what Rev 1:11-18 means, Anthony.

=========

Ken –

First of all, I notice that you utterly *failed* to do the one thing I asked you to do: interact with the *Scripture references* I provided. Was that too hard, or just beneath you, Ken? Your pontifications on what the Kingdom of God is all about are utterly *meaningless* without some grounding in Scripture. Yet that is the one thing you have failed to provide. Disgraceful.

You wrote: “Jesus Christ, the human Messiah began his actual existence on earth.  He is not the so called 2nd person of the trinity and neither was he a pre-existent spirit”

But contrary to this, Jesus said, “And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world. ” (Joh 17:5) and “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I AM.” (Joh 8:58) Either Ken Lokken is right or Jesus Christ is right; it can’t be both.

You also wrote: “Finite man cannot commit infinite sin.”

ALL sins are infinitely heinous, not because of the infinite glory of man, but because of the infinite glory of GOD. When man offends an infinite God, that sin is an infinite sin. The fact that you can’t see that shows that you have absolutely no understanding of God’s glory; your puny little god only needs man’s tears of repentance to be appeased. The true God of the Bible needs the blood of his only begotten Son, the divine mediator between God and Man, to appease his wrath over sin. That is why I say that you have committed blasphemy in preaching that Jesus was merely human, and not God in the flesh. With no understanding of the infinite glory of God, the infinite heinousness of sin, and the need for an infinite atonement for those sins, you show that you have no understanding of the true Gospel. You are lost, Ken, and your deeds are evil; you are dead in your sins. Repent and believe the Gospel.

You wrote: “The Gospel is the good news of the Messiah and his future Kingdom on earth.  It was all Jesus talked about.  Only just before his closing days did he even mention that the son of man must suffer to cleanse his people from their sins. “

Really? So why was the Christ-child given the name “Jesus” in Mat 1:21? Was it because he would “usher in the Kingdom on earth”? NO. The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves”, and we are specifically told that he would save his people “FROM THEIR SINS”. So, nice try on the obfuscation, but it doesn’t work. Here is the true definition of the Gospel:

Next, you asked: “Can God die? “

Answer: YES.

17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. (Rev 1:17-18)

And if you doubt that the speaker is God Almighty, see how he introduces himself in verse 9: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” Compare Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.

You also wrote: “I am saying a perfect human Jew became our savior.  Tell me just how would God incarnate?  To do so would make him less than God.  Fully God/fully man is neither fully God or fully man. “

Have you ever even READ a New Testament?! This is basic stuff, Ken!

“41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “ The Son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. “

The Pharisees couldn’t answer Jesus’ question, and neither can you, Ken.

Jesus was fully God and fully Man because he was begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. He partook of both the human and divine natures. Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was “was made a little lower than the angels”. How is that even possible if Jesus is merely a man? ALL men are lower than the angels, so how was Jesus “made” a little lower? Hebrews 2:17 says “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. ” If Jesus was merely human, then he was ALREADY like his brothers; so how was he “made” to be like his brothers?

You also wrote: “I am not as wise as you theologians; but neither am I looking through your lenses which I am most familiar with.  “

Yeah, you’re just so exceedingly humble, Ken. Keep blowing that trumpet, so the whole world can gather around and see just how wildly humble you are.

Go read the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 23. Was Jesus being humble when he called the Pharisees vipers, whitewashed tombs, and sons of the Devil?

(Here’s a hint: YES, he WAS being humble.)

You wrote: “Perhaps you should at least give mine a try? You pride yourself in being a Berean.  To search the scriptures means just that.  It does not mean to uphold a bias.”

Yet, you are perfectly willing to NOT search the Scriptures, and uphold YOUR bias. As long as you’re going to live in that glass house, you should probably keep the stones to yourself. Oh, and please, please, close the curtains, Ken. Please.

As for “Focus on the Kingdom”, yeah, I might have some fun refuting their nonsense. But then, I have already written a pair of articles on the divinity of Jesus Christ: ‘A Christian View of the Messiah‘, and ‘An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness‘. If you are as open minded as you seem to think you are (or as open minded as you expect me to be), you will go read them. Of course I’m not holding my breath.

I don’t care whether you recognize the Confession, Ken; that isn’t why I quoted it. What I was doing was putting forth the truth of this doctrine (the deity of Christ) as it has already been formulated. And if the Scripture references are so haphazard and misinterpreted, then why don’t you SHOW US that, instead of asking us to take your word for it? Show us how the Scripture references are misused or misinterpreted, Ken. Then you might have something resembling an argument. Apparently that’s just to much to ask for.

As for Deuteronomy 6:4 “”, here is what John Gill had to say about the passage:

” In an ancient book of theirs it is said {o} Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah (i.e. Jehovah, our God, Jehovah); these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery; “in the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth”; and again {p}, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one; the three forms (modes or things) which are one; and elsewhere {q} it is observed, there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to (or of) them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu (our God) is joined unto them; and it is the seal of the ring of truth, and when they are joined they are one in one unity; which is illustrated by the three names the soul of man is called by, the soul, spirit, and breath; and elsewhere they say {r} the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah, are called one; see Joh 10:30. {o} Zohar in Gen. fol. 1, 3. {p} Ib. in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4. {q} Ib. in Numb. fol. 67. 3. {r} Tikkune Zohar, Correct. 47. fol. 86. 2.Ç”

So, yeah, I’m pretty sure Moses would have no problem agreeing that God is a triune being (ie. three in ONE).

Here is some of what I wrote in the article ‘An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness‘ :

“God is an infinite God and an infinitely righteous God. Therefore, all sin is an infinite offense to him (Exodus 20:5, Habakkuk 1:13). Therefore, any sacrifice that is intended to atone for sin must be an infinite sacrifice. Anything less would be insufficient to turn away God’s wrath against the sins of his people. It is only as Jesus Christ partakes of the two natures, human and divine, that he is able to become the Mediator between God and Man (Job 9:33; Hebrews 2:17), able to “lay his hand” upon both at once. Therefore, the Gospel absolutely requires that Jesus Christ not only be a real human being but also be God incarnate, God in the flesh.

…

The fact that Jesus is more than a mere “creature” is inferred from the following facts:

1. Several titles applied to Jesus Christ. Jesus is called “Lord”, by Thomas and Stephen (John 20: 28, Acts 7:59-60), and Christians must confess Jesus as “Lord” (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12: 3). The Greek word here translated “Lord” is kurios, which is the word used to translate “Jehovah” in the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Similarly, Jesus is called “Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23), which means “God with us.” And in Revelation 22:13, Jesus is called “the first and the last,” a title that is given to Jehovah God in Isaiah 44:6. None of these titles could be given to a mere creature.

2. Several attributes of Jesus Christ. Jesus is described as all-knowing (John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17), all-powerful (Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:3), eternal (Micah 5:2), and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). And Colossians 2:9 states that in Jesus Christ “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (NWT). None of these things can be said of a mere creature.

3. Several works of Jesus Christ. Jesus has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Luke 5:24; Ephesians 1:7), control nature (Matthew 8:26), give eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2), and judge the world (John 5:22 & 27). None of these things can be done by a mere creature.

4. Jesus Christ received worship. Jesus received worship from men (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38) and angels (Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:11-13). Yet worship is due to God alone (Exodus 34:14; Acts 14:11-18; Romans 1:24-25; Revelation 19:10). Jesus himself even taught this (Matthew 4:10; John 4:23). No mere creature can legitimately receive worship.

5. The Patriarchs and Prophets expected a Messiah who would also be Jehovah. The Messiah was expected to be not only David’s son, but his Lord as well (Psalm 110:1). Job said “For I know my Redeemer [is] living, and He shall rise on the earth at the last; and after my skin has been struck off from my flesh, yet this, I shall see God” (Job 19:25-26). John wrote of Jesus in John 12:37-41 that Isaiah “saw His glory, and spoke about Him.” (cf. Isaiah 6:1-5). The Patriarchs and Prophets did not expect that the Messiah would be a mere creature.

Finally, there is Revelation 1: 11-18. In this section, John sees a vision of a person who clearly identifies himself as Jehovah God (vss. 11,14,17). He also has the appearance of a “Son of Man” (v. 13). But this person goes on to say, in v. 18, “I became dead.” So how could Jehovah God die? The only possible explanation is that Jehovah God died on a Roman cross, just outside Jerusalem.“

You wrote: “Your very statement tells me you have absolutely no idea what the gospel is all about.  the death, buriel, ressurrection are one of the primary things concerning the Kingdom Of God.”

Oh, so I “have absolutely no idea what the gospel is all about”, eh? Does this mean that I am LOST, Ken? But since I know you don’t have the spine to judge me lost, what is the point of telling me about your view of the Kingdom? If I will be going to heaven no matter what I believe about the Gospel, what is the point of preaching it, or correcting me on my misunderstanding of it?

You are lost, Ken, and so is everyone who believes this damnable heresy. I can say that with absolute certainty because of Mat 7:20. Repent and believe the Gospel.

==========

Ken –

What did you mean when you wrote this:

I’m especially curious about that last sentence. There seems to be a word missing, and from the context it seems to be the word ‘moment’. If so, then the full sentence reads “At that precise [moment,] Jesus began his existence.” If you intended to add a different word please say so.

If Jesus began his existence at the moment he was conceived, then he was not God in the flesh. If he was not God in the flesh, then his sacrifice of himself on the cross was not of infinite value, and therefore insufficient to atone for the infinitely heinous sins of his people. This is blasphemy.

God’s “program” for his people is not merely to give them something to do, or even something to look forward to. His “program” is to cleanse them from their sins:

The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts. It reveals the righteousness of God – how God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. The gospel is not merely the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, considered apart from the purpose of these truths, which were accomplished to establish a righteousness for all whom Jesus represented.[Gen 15:5-6; Psa 103:2-12; 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:5-8,13-25; 10:4,15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 5:21; Eph 1:3-2:22; 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1,9-10; Heb 10:4-17] (Christian Confession of Faith V.B.1, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm )

But your version of God’s “program” is good news to NO ONE, because there is no divine savior, and therefore no atoning blood, no imputed righteousness, and no “blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory“.

You go on to confirm that you don’t believe in the divine nature of Jesus Christ, when you write:

“Jesus who alone has immortal life, who alone is a glorified man in heaven, is now waiting, …”

Without a savior who is God Incarnate, there is simply no good news:

Jesus of Nazareth is really and truly God as well as really and truly human. He is the only descendant of Adam with two natures, human and divine. These two natures are continually without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Scripture rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was merely human and not fully divine. It likewise rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was a supernatural being but not fully human. [Deu 18:15; Psa 2:7; 110:1; Isa 9:6; Luk 2:7; Joh 1:1,14,18; 3:16,18; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; Act 20:28; Rom 1:3; 1Co 15:47; Gal 4:4; Phi 2:6-8; Col 1:15; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-5; 5:5; 1Jo 4:9,15; Rev 1:17-18](Christian Confession of Faith IV.A.2, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm )

Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men, for He alone has partaken of both the divine and human natures and is alone able to lay His hand upon both God and Man. Scripture rejects the lie that Mary or any “saints” mediate between God and men. [Job 9:32-33; Isa 53:12; Zec 6:13; Luk 23:34; Joh 14:6; Act 4:12; Rom 5:1-2; Eph 2:14-18; 1Ti 2:5; Heb 4:15; 9:15; 10:19-20; 12:24] (Christian Confession of Faith IV.D.1, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm )

If you (or anyone else on this cc list) would like to respond, I would welcome the exchange. But I ask that you make some effort to deal with the Scripture references I have put forth here (a job which you utterly failed to do in your original post — a sad commentary on a post that was supposed to be about “the message of God’s kingdom”).

Despite his apparent desire to be named as a bishop in America, Wesley did not say very much about the relationship of Church and State. However, he did have some words of criticism for John Calvin’s view of the relationship of Church and State:

I dare not insist upon any one’s using the word Trinity, or Person. …. I cannot: Much less would I burn a man alive, and that with moist, green wood, for saying, ” Though I believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; yet I scruple using the words Trinity and Persons, because I do not find those terms in the Bible.” These are the words which merciful John Calvin cites as wrote by Servetus in a letter to himself. (6:201, Sermon 55 On The Trinity, May 8, 1775)

Those who can’t logically refute predestination will often run to this episode in Calvin’s life as seemingly irrefutable proof that predestination is false. Their view seems to be that Calvin taught predestination because he was just plain mean. Obviously the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow. But it is worth examining Calvin’s rationalization for the use of the death penalty against Servetus, because it offers a very revealing look at the whole relationship of Church and State.

There is an amazing amount of literature on this subject, but it all falls into two distinct categories: that which depicts Servetus as a paragon of virtue, filled with all humility, temperance, patience, and meekness, and a selfless martyr for freedom of conscience under the cruel, tyrannical, bloodthirsty,merciless, iron hand of petty, vindictive John Calvin¹; and that which presents a much more realistic picture of the two men and their times, but presents Calvin as merely being influenced by the vestiges of an archaic view of the role of politics in the service of religion². Neither type has the slightest interest in what specifically motivated Calvin to support the use of capital punishment against heretics.

First, a few of the facts³. Miguel Serveto was a doctor from Spain, studying in Vienne, France. In 1531, he published a book called Errors on the Trinity , that was openly anti-Trinitarian. In 1545, he had some correspondence with Calvin, and continued to defend his anti-Trinitarian views. But Calvin became so frustrated with Servetus’ heresies and personal pride⁴ that he finally broke off correspondence with Servetus. Soon thereafter, Calvin wrote a letter to his friend William Farel, which contains the infamous passage “But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.”⁵

Servetus published a second book, Christianity Restored, and was subsequently arrested by the Inquisition in April, 1553, at Vienne. He was sentenced to death by burning, but escaped. He was then burned in effigy, along with most of his books. In July of 1553, Servetus went to Geneva, apparently to join Calvin’s enemies there, a party called the Libertines. In August, he attended one of Calvin’s sermons, was recognized, and arrested. The Inquisition demanded that Servetus be returned to Vienne, to be executed there, but the Geneva council refused. (When asked, Servetus himself preferred to remain in Geneva.)

On Sept. 22, 1553, Servetus submitted a petition to the Genevan Council. Schaff says “He declared in his petition that Calvin, like a magician, ought to be exterminated, and his goods be confiscated and given to Servetus, in compensation for the loss he had sustained through Calvin … But the Council took no notice of his petition.”⁶ The Council sentenced Servetus to death, by being burned alive. Calvin concurred with the death penalty, but requested that the form be changed to beheading, as it was quicker and less painful⁷. The Council refused. At Servetus’ request, Calvin visited Servetus before the execution, and urged him to repent, but Servetus would not.

At the execution, Servetus cried out “Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!” This prompted Farel to remark that Servetus had been killed for a single adjective; meaning that if Servetus had called Jesus “the eternal Son of God”, he would have been spared. Nevertheless, Farel’s remark has provided much ammunition for Free Willers to accuse Calvin of ‘making Servetus an offender for a word’. But almost every contemporary Reformer supported the execution, including Melancthon, Bucer, and Bullinger in Germany, and Farel and Beza in Switzerland⁸. As a historical footnote, however, a statue was erected by Swiss Calvinists in 1912, bearing the inscription “In memory of Michael Servetus – victim of religious intolerance of his time, and burned for his convictions at Champel, on September 27, 1553. Erected by the followers of John Calvin, three hundred and fifty years later, as “expiation” for that act, and to repudiate all coercion in matters of faith.”⁹

Obviously, Wesley, in his reference to Calvin’s supposed use of “moist, green wood” intended to imply that persecution of dissenters is the natural fruit of the doctrine of predestination. Not only was the situation a lot more complicated than that, but Wesley conveniently ignored all the evidence to the contrary; that it is actually the doctrine of Free-Will that produces the fruit of persecution.

Let’s look first at the institution that originally arrested and tried Servetus: the Inquisition. It was created in the fifteenth century after Spanish Jews were forcibly converted to Catholicism. When many of those Jews converted publicly, but continued to practice Judaism privately, the Inquisition was created to find and eliminate them. Later, the full force of the Inquisition would be brought to bear on thousands, if not millions of Reformers, Anabaptists, and various non-Catholics, in Holland, France, Spain, Italy, and Germany, with much the same object as that for which it was originally created: conversion of ‘heretics’ to Catholicism by the power of the sword. Now there is really only one reason to forcibly convert someone, and that reason is the doctrine of free-will. After all, if faith is given exclusively by the grace of God, then sword-point conversions are rendered meaningless. They cannot produce true, saving faith. On the other hand, if faith is produced by the free-will of man, then a sword-point conversion can actually convert someone. In fact, it becomes a great way of forcibly converting large numbers of people to your religion.¹⁰ So, contrary to popular belief, the great impulse for religious persecution is in fact free-will, while the great impulse for religious and political toleration is predestination.

It is worth noting that the early Arminians (also called ‘Remonstrants’) learned this lesson well, from their Catholic predecessors in Holland. The Acts of the Synod of Dordrecht were originally published with a lengthy foreword, describing some of the events leading up to the Synod, and it includes some of the persecutions Arminians inflicted on their opponents¹¹:

“For Adolphus Venator, the Minister [of the Church of Alkmaar] was suspended from his ministry by the North-Holland Churches on account of his unsound life and thoroughly unsound doctrine. But he, appealing to the Magistrate there and despising ecclesiastical censures, nevertheless continued in the office of Minister. …. These [Magistrates] … first forced the elders and deacons to lay down their office; then they did the same thing to the two Ministers because they had taken position against the errors of Venator. And when the Ministers had been deposed from their office, they were scandalously driven out of the city. The one was Pieter Cornelissen, who had been minister for some fifty years with great edification; and the other was Cornelius Hillenius, a bright and pious man, both of them earnest defenders of the pure doctrine.”¹²

“There were also many churches in the villages on whom, against their will, were imposed Remonstrant Ministers, or Ministers who were favorable to the Remonstrants. And seeing that they could not without the greatest offense, grief, and unrest listen to those terrible slanders against sound doctrine which were daily heard in their sermons, the people of these congregations forsook their churches and went to hear the sermons of neighboring sound Ministers; …. When the Remonstrants sought in vain to prevent this by strict prohibitions by the Magistrates, they aroused no little persecution against those churches. …. In the province of Utrecht … [Johannes] Uitenbogaard, August 24, introduced certain Remonstrant ministers, …. Thereafter these men were very zealous and diligent that not only in the City, but in the entire Province, everywhere where they could, the sound Ministers were driven out and replaced by Remonstrants, so that only the doctrine of the Remonstrance was openly taught.”¹³

“Meanwhile, Uitenbogaard brought it about through the authority of certain Leaders, his Fellow-Ministers were ordered to obey these resolutions [ie. new laws regarding the installment of Church Ministers, favorable to the Remonstrants]….. When because of this many pious people were punished by confiscation of goods and with imprisonments and exile, they appealed to the highest Court of Justice and sought help against this violence. And now the honorable Lord Counsellors of the High Council sought to come to the help of the oppressed; but the Remonstrants saw to it, through the Advocate [ie. Uitenbogaard], that the High Council was forbidden to help, and that the hands of the High Court of Justice were tied.”¹⁴

Remonstrant persecution of their opponents did not end in Holland, or even with the Synod of Dordt. It continued to spread into England, where it was heavily promoted by Archbishop Laud. An example of Laud’s persecution of Calvinists is seen in his reaction to the trial of Dr. Thomas Jackson. Jackson was arrested for writing a book against the ceremonies of the Church of England. He was kept in prison for sixteen weeks before his trial, and this imprisonment had deteriorated his health to the point that he could not even attend the trial. Horatius Bonar writes that Star Chamber “condemned the afflicted and aged divine to be degraded as a minister, to have one of his ears cut off, and one side of his nose slit, to be branded on the face with a red-hot iron, to stand in the pillory, to be whipped at a post, to pay a fine of £1000, and to suffer imprisonment until the fine was paid. When this inhuman sentence was pronounced, Laud took off his hat, and holding up his hands, gave thanks to God who had given the Church victory over her enemies! The sentence was executed without mercy, and Leighton lay in prison till upward of ten years.”¹⁵

To his credit, Wesley himself never advocated such persecution of predestinarians. His style was more along the lines of having a massive ‘revival’, with lots of emotional frenzy, and thousands of people ‘saved’; and later Methodists would take this line of thinking to even greater heights, or depths, of silliness. But the great principle behind both the persecutions and the ‘revivals’ is free-will. So far from persecution being a fruit of predestination, we see that persecution is, in reality, a fruit that springs from the tree of free-will! (Mat 6:16-18)

But here we run into a problem. John Calvin was one of the greatest champions of predestination, and one of the most eloquent opponents of free will, in all of history. But we have already seen that Calvin concurred with the death penalty ordered against Servetus. How is it that John Calvin, whose name is practically synonymous with predestination, seems to have endorsed a practice so thoroughly grounded in free-will?

John Calvin held to several doctrines that would today be reviled as hyper-Calvinist. These include supralapsarianism¹⁹, double imputation²⁰, and double predestination²¹. But he also held to some doctrines that seem rather at odds with predestination. Advocates of Common Grace often point to passages in Calvin’s writing to support their theory, but it is more correct to say that he held to common aspects of grace:

“The power of human acuteness also appears in learning these [ie the arts] because all of us have a certain aptitude. . . . Hence, with good reason we are compelled to confess that its beginning is inborn in human nature. Therefore this evidence clearly testifies to a universal apprehension of reason and understanding by nature implanted in men. Yet so universal is this good that every man ought to recognize for himself in it the peculiar grace of God.”²²

“…how unworthy soever we be and straight, yet the fatherly love of God breaketh through even unto the unworthy. Especially the generality of mankind doth testify that the benefits of God do never cease, wherein heappeareth to be our Father.”²³

So, according to Calvin, the knowledge of arts and sciences which people possess is a “peculiar grace” of God, while the “sun and rain on the evil and the good” shows that God is, in some sense, a Father to the entire human race. This, indeed, is a far cry from the idea that God is waiting, pleading, and yearning over every sinner in the world, as promoted by the Marrow Men, certain Puritans, and assorted tolerant Calvinists.²⁴ But it is certainly a tentative step in that direction.

Calvin, however, does not seem to have held the theory of common aspects of grace in isolation. It seems that he also held to a theory of universal aspects of the Atonement:

“True it is that the effect of His death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered His death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them…”²⁵

“And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price.”²⁶

“The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of his love toward the Church in shedding his own blood for it. Whereby it appeareth how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offense, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish …”²⁷

These quotes alone prove that Calvin was not even a Christian, for it shows that he believed that the Atonement was intended to accomplish something which it failed to do (Psa 115:3, Isa 46:10, Eph 1:11). This kind of blasphemy is never taught by the Holy Spirit; it is only taught by Satan and his children.

But thus the stage was set for Calvin to do a theological end-run around the doctrine of predestination, retaining all the man-centered qualities of free-will, without discarding the biblical truth of predestination. That is to say, universal aspects of the atonement and common aspects of grace add up to free aspects of the will. Calvin could therefore go on at length about the wickedness of free will, while still maintaining that God will nevertheless reward even the wicked when they obey his Law:

“The reward, that the days of children who have behaved themselves piously to their parents shall be prolonged, aptly corresponds with the observance of the commandment, since in this manner God gives us a proof of His favor in this life, when we have been grateful to those to whom we are indebted for it; whilst it is by no means just that they should greatly prolong their life who despise those progenitors by whom they have been brought into it. … But inasmuch as long life is not vouchsafed to all who have discharged the duties of piety towards their parents, it must be remembered that, with respect to temporal rewards, an infallible law is by no means laid down; and still, where God works variously and unequally, His promises are not made void, because abetter compensation is secured in heaven for believers, who have been deprived on earth of transitory blessings.”²⁸

It was Calvin’s doctrine of common aspects of grace that laid the foundation for Reconstructionism. Gary North writes:

“The working out of the principle of covenantal blessing can lead to the positive feedback operation: historical blessing to covenantal reaffirmation to greater historical blessing.” “The law of God is a tool of dominion. There can be no long-term dominion in defiance of it. When men adhere to its principles externally, they receive God’s external blessings. This is common grace. … This common grace obedience brings external blessings. It may also bring external influence. These blessings do not point to the salvation of unregenerate people; if anything, they point to their coming destruction, for reprobates always grow arrogant when they receive God’s covenantal blessings. … The positive feedback between faith and blessings requires additional faith to sustain the growth process. … The law is the basis of affirming the covenant. It is the basis of positive feedback culturally. … God’s law is the primary manifestation of common grace.”²⁹

Notice the recurring theme that “external obedience to God brings external blessings”, and the use of the word “feedback”. This is essentially “free aspects of the will”: God responding to what the unregenerate do, rewarding them for their external obedience, even though they do not have faith (Heb 11:6).

Reconstructionists, in their turn, have taken the doctrines of common aspects of grace, and free aspects of the will, and constructed a theology which allows for cooperation between Calvinists and Roman Catholics. Take a moment to think about these two astounding quotes, found recently on the World Wide Web:

 “So let us reconsider the biblical basis for a truly Christian doctrine of natural law. … it will show us the basis on which those of us who are Evangelical or Reformed can cooperate with our Catholic brothers in opposing the common foe.”³⁰

 “…vital to ECT’s success is an ecumenical dialogue based on the self-evident truths of Catholic Natural Law Theory and Calvin’s insights on common grace.”³¹

Ironically, it has come to this. John Calvin, who so vehemently opposed the Roman Catholic church, along with all its will worship, superstition, and idolatry, himself set down the principles upon which his followers could cooperate, and eventually fellowship, with Roman Catholics. After all, most Catholics outwardly obey the Law of God, so (according to Gary North’s “feedback” theory) God should provide them with outward blessings, right? And if the blood of Jesus was, in some sense, intended for them as well, we should have no problem cooperating with them against an ungodly world, right?

Against all this filth, we maintain that the church in this world is not called to works of cooperation with the world, or the whore church. She is called to preach the antithesis: to oppose the evil works of the world, and expose the wickedness of the whore church, especially when that wickedness is hidden behind a facade of godliness, and outward obedience to the Law. She is called to do this because she has absolutely nothing in common with world or the false church. In no sense does the grace of God extend to them, in no sense did Jesus die for them, and in no sense are they able to choose obedience to God (Pro 16:4 & 21:1, John 1:12-13 & 15:21-25, Rom 9:16).

Furthermore, in no sense is the church called to use the sword as a means of conversion, let alone the prosecution of heretics. Faith does not come by the free will of man, but by the grace of God alone (Eph 2:8-9). It is God alone who determines when and where a conversion will take place, not the use of force (Jms 1:20). It is also God alone who determines how a sinner will be hardened against the Gospel (Psa 105:25, 2 Cor 2:15-16, Rev 17:17). If a sinner is predestined to hate the Gospel, God can as easily use the true preaching of the Gospel, as the preaching of a heretic, so it is no excuse to argue that a heretic murders the soul of his hearers. The election of God can neither be increased nor diminished by dispatching a heretic off to hell. The church in this world is most certainly called to remove heretics and ungodly men from her midst (1 Cor 5:4-5, Eph 5:11, Tit 3:10) in the hope that their removal will cause them to repent, and believe the Gospel. But the church does not safeguard her members by executing heretics, any more than she increases her membership with forced conversions. The power of God is not in the sword, but in the Gospel (John 18:36, Rom 1:16-17, 2 Cor 10:3-5); specifically in the true preaching of the Gospel, a preaching that involves pointing fingers at heretics, naming their names and warning the sheep about the wolves (Mt 23:13ff, Ac 20:28-31, Gal 1:8-10, 2 Tim 2:16-18, 1 Jn 4:1-3).

This section has necessarily gone into some of the larger issues relevant to the trial and execution of Servetus. To conclude, therefore, let it be understood that Calvin’s participation in the execution of Miguel Serveto was, historically, a very complicated matter, not the stark, good-Servetus/evil-Calvin dichotomy we are led to believe. However, it is still true that Calvin did support the use of the death penalty against heretics like Servetus.

But against the insinuations of Free-Will advocates like John Wesley, we maintain that this was not the fruit of predestination, but the vestiges of Free-Will that Calvin still clung to. Therefore, let every Arminian, Unitarian, Roman Catholic, and every other defender of Free-Will take note of the spirit of intolerance and persecution inherent in their own system.

And further, let every Reconstructionist and tolerant Calvinist take note of the logical direction their theology of common grace will eventually take them. Let them also take note how the doctrine of common grace goes hand in hand with the blasphemous doctrines of universal (aspects of the) atonement, and free (aspects of the) will.

1One claimed that Calvin “had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart” and another claimed “A book printer who had railed at Calvin had his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron”. Neither author offered proof of these accusations. But the editor of Calvin’s letters notes: “ Calvin shewed himself, on more than one occasion, disposed to forgive personal injuries, as the Registers of Council testify: — “A woman having abused M. Calvin, it is directed that she be consigned to prison. Liberated at the request of the said M. Calvin, and discharged with a reproof.” — 12th December 1545.” Calvin’s Letters, #154, 13thFebruary1546, fn 27.

2Phillip Schaff says “Calvin’s [participation in the] arrest of Servetus admit of no proper justification, and are due to an excess of zeal for orthodoxy.” Scaff, History of the Christian Church, vol VIII, ch. 16, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm , June 21, 2001

3For a thorough and detailed discussion of the events surrounding the trial, see Schaff, ibid. Schaff includes an extensive discussion of Servetus’ life and theology, his invectives against Calvin, his behavior before the Inquisition, and a general discussion of religious liberty before and after Servetus’ execution. See also Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), p. 412-419.http://www.ccel.org/b/boettner/predest/2.htm , June 5, 2001.

4See Calvin’s Letters, #153, Feb 13, 1546.

5Calvin’s Letters, #154, Feb 13, 1546. It should be noted, however, that Calvin did not have any such authority; he was never a member of the city Council, and was not even a citizen of Geneva until years later. The only real authority he had was as pastor of the French refugees in Geneva. Furthermore, his influence over the Geneva city council was tenuous at best. Indeed, the President of the Court and many influential members of the court were Calvin’s avowed enemies.

6Schaff, ibid.

7Calvin’s Letters, #322, August 20, 1553. Interestingly, Farel rebuked Calvin for this action: “In

desiring to mitigate the severity of his punishment, you act the part of a friend to a man who is most hostile to you.” Calvin’s Letters, #322, fn 395

8Boettner,ibid. See also Calvin’s Letters,#331

9http://www.biblestudents.org/absco/photodrama/pd0009.htm#Calvin%20and%20Servetus , June 21, 2001. Note, however, that the date of Servetus’ execution was October 27, not September 27, of 1553.

10Let the reader note that, although the name has been changed, the Inquisition is still in existence; it even has its own web site ( http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_en.html , May 15, 2001). But even if the Inquisition were not around, the principle of free-will is still a foundational element of the Roman Catholic system, so that the horrors of the Inquisition could be brought back at any time, if necessary. I note in passing, that the Roman Catholic Church has never erected any statues repudiating the massacre of thousands upon thousands of Dutch, German, French, Scottish, and English Reformers.

11Reprinted in Homer C. Hoekserma, The Voice of Our Fathers (Reformed Free Publishing Assoc., Grand Rapids, MI, 1980), p. 45-102

12Ibid, p. 78-79

13Ibid., p. 79-80

14Ibid., p. 89. The Foreword goes on to describe how Uitenbogaard raised his own militia to defend the Remonstrant ministers in the event that a national Synod were called, and the Remonstrant doctrines condemned.

15Horatius Bonar, The Letters of Samuel Rutherford, quoted in Arminianism – Another Gospel, by Donald MacLean, 1976 (Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Glasgow).

16Ibid. p. 34

17Ibid. p. 34

18Ibid. p.37-8

19Inst II:12:5http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch12.html , June 5, 2001;

Comm. on Malachi, Lecture 170 http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol30/htm/iv.ii.ii.htm , June 5, 2001.

20Inst II:16:5+6 http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch16.html, June 5, 2001;

Comm. on II Cor 5:21http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm , June 5, 2001.

21Inst II:4:3 http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch04.html, June 5, 2001;

Inst III:21:8 http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk3ch21.html, June 5, 2001;

Inst III:23:1+8http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk3ch23.html , June 5, 2001.

22Institutes II:2:14 http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch14.html , June 5, 2001 (emph mine).

23Comm on Acts 14:17http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol37/htm/ii.iv.htm , June 5, 2001(emph mine)

24“Christ invites sinners with an enlarged heart. Joy enlarges it. His heart is open to you, his arms are stretched wide. … Would you do Christ a pleasure? then come to him. … Would you content and ease his heart? Then come.” [Thomas Boston,from his sermon, Come Unto Me, All Ye That Labour, distributed in booklet form by Chapel Library, Pensacola, Floridahttp://www.mountzion.org/text/comeunto.rtf , June 5, 2001].

25Sermon CXVI on the Book of Job (31:29-32) XXX

26Comm. on Jude 4, http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/viii.iii.htm , June 5, 2001.

27Comm. on Ac 20:28,http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol37/htm/viii.v.htm , June 5, 2001.

28Commentary on the Harmony of the Law, vol. 3, Exodus 20:12, http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol05/htm/ii.htm , June 5, 2001; emph. added

29Dominion and Common Grace, http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm , June 5, 2001.

30J. Budziszewski, “Apostles of Common Grace” http://www.calvin.edu/henry/budlect.htm , June 5, 2001; emph. in orig.

For those who believe I am too harsh in saying that Wesley made “vicious attatcks” on Augustus Toplady, consider the following incidents. (Please note that this appendix is not intended as an endorsement of either Augustus Toplady or James Hervey; it is only intended to illustrate a specific instance of the conflict between the two of them and John Wesley. For more discussion on the spiritual state of Augustus Toplady, see here.)

In 1769, Augustus Toplady published his translation of Jerome Zanchius’ Absolute Predestination. Consequently, we find among Wesley’s collected letters the following, addressed to Walter Sellon, and dated December 30, 1769:

And pray add a word or two to Mr. Toplady, not only with regard to Zanchius, but his slander on the Church of England. …. He does certainly believe himself to be the greatest genius in England. (13:44)

Apparently Sellon was contemplating a reply to Toplady on a number of issues. But the final form was not entirely decided upon. Wesley’s next letter to Sellon, dated February 21, 1770, reads:

Do not make too much haste. Give everything the last touch. It will be enough if the papers meet me at Manchester before the end of March. I believe it will be the best way to bestow a distinct pamphlet on Mr. Toplady. Surely wisdom will die with him! I believe we can easily get his other tract, which it would be well to sift to the very foundation, in order to stop the mouth of that vain boaster. (13:45)

Apparently, something was brewing. Now, considering the opposition between Wesley and Toplady, one would have certainly expected Wesley to make an attempt at refuting a book entitled Absolute Predestination. But what came next was beyond belief. In March of 1770, a tract was quietly circulated among the Wesleyan Methodists, bearing the title The Doctrine Of Absolute Predestination Stated And Asserted By The Reverend Mr. A— T—.(14:190) Notice that the initials in the title of this tract are not Wesley’s, but those of Augustus Toplady. The “Advertisement” reads:

It is granted that the ensuing tract is, in good measure, a translation. Nevertheless, considering the unparalleled modesty and self-diffidence of the young translator, and the tenderness wherewith he treats his opponents, it may well pass for an original.

The body of this article consists of a chopped and edited version of Absolute Predestination. In his A Letter To The Rev. Mr. John Wesley &c, ¹ Toplady compares the following quotes:

The final paragraph of this abridgement reads:

The sum of all is this: One in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will: the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can. Reader, believe this, or be damned. Witness my hand, A– T–.

Again, the initials are those of Augustus Toplady, but the name of John Wesley or Walter Sellon does not appear anywhere within it. This despicable tactic is, if anything, worse than plagiarism or rumor-mongering. It is putting words into Toplady’s mouth, words that he certainly would never have uttered himself. Toplady wrote a scathing reply, dated March 26, 1770, entitled A Letter To The Rev. Mr. John Wesley Relative To His Pretended Abridgement Of Zanchius On Predestination².

Whether my view of the doctrine itself be, in fact, right or wrong is no part of the present enquiry: the question is, have you quoted me fairly? Blush, Mr. Wesley, if you are capable of blushing. For once publicly acknowledge yourself to have acted criminally: unless, to use your own words on another occasion, “shame and you have shook hands and parted.”

In almost any other case, a similar forgery would transmit the criminal to Virginia or Maryland, if not to Tyburn. If such an opponent can be deemed an honest man, where shall we find a knave? –What would you think of me, were I infamous enough to abridge any treatise of yours, sprinkle it with interpolations, and conclude it thus: Reader, buy this book, or be damned, Witness my hand, John Wesley? ³

You have obliquely given me a sneering lecture upon “modesty, self-diffidence,and tenderness” to opponents: and it must be owned, that the lesson comes with a peculiar grace and quite in character from you. The words sound well: but, like many other prescribers, you say and do not. Go now, sir, and dazzle the credulous with your mock victory over the supposed reprobation of “nineteen in twenty.” Go on to chalk hideous figures on your wainscot; and enjoy the glorious triumph of battering your knuckles in fighting them. But father no more of your hideous figures on me. Do not dress up scare-crows of your own, and then affect to run away from them as mine. I do not expect to be treated by Mr. John Wesley with the candour of a gentleman, or the meekness of a Christian; but I wish him, for his reputation’s sake, to write and act with the honesty of a heathen. ⁴

In January of 1771, the letter was republished with an introduction that contained the following:

Nine months are now elapsed since the first publication of this letter; in all which time Mr. W. has neither apologized for the misdemeanor which occasioned his hearing from me in this public manner, nor attempted to answer the charges entered against him. Judging, probably, that the former would be too condescending in one who has erected himself into the leader of a sect, and that the latter would prove rather too difficult a task, and involve him in a subsequent train of fresh detections, he has prudently omitted both. …. The reason is obvious. Mr. W. is a red-hot Arminian: and the sagacious doctors can discern, with half an eye, that Arminianism lies within a bowshot of Socinianism and Deism. ⁵

In March of 1771, Wesley published a revision of his collected works, with a Preface that contained the following incredible statement:

In revising what I had wrote on so many various subjects and occasions, and for so long a course of years, I found cause for not only literal or verbal corrections, but frequently for correcting the sense also. I am the more concerned to do this, because none but myself has a right to do it. (1:iii, Preface To The Third Edition)

In August of 1771, Wesley finally responded to Toplady’s Letter with a tract entitled The Consequence Proved, which began with these words:

Mr. Toplady, a young, bold man, lately published a pamphlet, an extract from which was soon after printed, concluding with these words:– “The sum of all is this: One in twenty, suppose, of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will: The reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” A great outcry has been raised on that account, as though this was not a fair state of the case; and it has been vehemently affirmed, that no such consequence follows from the doctrine of absolute predestination.

I calmly affirm, it is a fair state of the case; this consequence does naturally and necessarily follow from the doctrine of absolute predestination as here stated and defended by bold Mr. Augustus Toplady. (10:370, The Consequence Proved)

Several points should be made about these paragraphs. Notice first, that Wesley made no attempt to deny his involvement in the production of this pamphlet. Secondly, observe that in his quote of the final paragraph, Wesley has entirely omitted the phrases “Reader, believe this or be damned”, and “Witness my hand, A– T–.” Thirdly, notice that he has entirely sidestepped the issue of whether he had a right to abridge Toplady’s translation of Zanchius. Toplady had never insisted that “this was not a fair state of the case.” Rather, he had said, “Whether my view of the doctrine itself be, in fact, right or wrong is no part of the present enquiry: the question is, have you quoted me fairly?” And lastly, let us also notice that it happens to be gloriously true that “The elect shall be saved, do what they will:” while “The reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” The elect shall be saved no matter how worthless and defiled their good works are, while the reprobate shall certainly be damned, no matter how much they sin (for that is all they can do). This, of course, isn’t quite what Wesley had in mind.

Presumably, Wesley meant that a belief in predestination naturally produces a fatalistic Antinomianism, causing people who fancy themselves elect to live dissolute lives, believing that it makes no difference to their election. Further, he apparently meant that a belief in predestination discourages those who fancy themselves reprobate from repentance. There is also the unspoken charge that Toplady thought he knew the number of the elect and the number of the reprobate. Then Wesley went on to say that, on the basis of Calvinism, sin could not exist, and God could not judge the world:

Mr. Toplady says, “God has a positive will to destroy the reprobate for their sins.” (Chap. 1) For their sins! How can that be? I positively assert, that (on this scheme) they have no sins at all. They never had; they can have none. For it cannot be a sin in a spark to rise, or in a stone to fall. And the spark of the stone is not more necessarily determined either to rise or to fall, than the man is to sin …. God himself did “predestinate them to fill up the measure of their iniquities;” …. So, “God decreed the Jews to be the crucifiers of Christ, and Judas to betray him.” (Chap. 4.) Whose fault was it then? You plainly say, It was not his fault, but God’s. For what was Judas, or ten thousand reprobates besides? Could they resist his decree? (10:372, The Consequence Proved)

How then can the Judge of all the earth consign them to everlasting fire, for what was in effect his own act and deed? I apprehend, then, this is no fallacious objection, byt a solid and weighty one; and defy any man living, who asserts the unconditional decree of reprobation or preterition (just the same in effect,) to reconcile this with the scriptural doctrine fo a future judgment. I say again, I defy any man on earth to show, how, on this scheme, God can “judge the world in righteousness.” (10:374, The Consequence Proved)

These accusations are serious, and shall be dealt with in turn.

The charge of Antinomianism is one that has been leveled against salvation by the grace of God even since the days of Paul the Apostle (Rom 3:8). Modern predestinarians would do well not to panic when such an accusation arises, let alone concede the argument; instead they should take a lesson from Paul:

Rom 3:31 Then do we make law of no effect through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the law (emph. mine – CA).

The doctrine of predestination doesn’t encourage lawlessness, it makes obedience to the law possible! A belief in the doctrine of predestination allows a saint to seek to please God out of gratitude for what he has already done in the person of Jesus Christ, and confidence that God himself will complete the work, all based on the certainty of eternal election. Just as it gives Christians assurance that our efforts in evangelism will be successful (no matter what the outward appearance), so it provides for us a basis for true repentance, obedience, and good works.

We have already seen that Wesley’s Perfectionism produces Antinomianism. But the foundation of Perfectionism is the Arminian doctrine of Free Will. The following quote, cited by Augustus Toplady, shows us the that the true foundation of Antinomianism is, not Unconditional Election, but Free Will:

“This … was the refuge and χρεσφφυδετοον of that grand propagator of Arminianism, Mr. Thompson [one of the translators of the 1611 KJV -- CA]. When he was in a fit of intemperance, if any one reminded him of the wrath of God threatened against such courses, he would answer, I am a child of the devil to-day; but I have free-will; and to morrow I will make myself a child of God.” Hickman’s Animadv. on Heylin, p.91, and 227.

Free-Will, in exalting Man above God, is the very essence of Antinomianism, and careless living. It encourages independence from God, and therefore causes Man to sit in judgement over God, reject any Scripture which Man doesn’t happen to like, speak peace to those who also believe in Free Will, and persecute those who don’t.

Toplady responded to The Consequence Proved with a public letter entitled More Work For Mr. John Wesley:

The point of enquiry, then is, Whether the elect themselves can be ultimately saved without being previously sanctified by inherent grace, and, (if adult) without evidencing that sanctification (according as ability and opportunity are given), by walking in the way of God’s commandments. …. The elect could no more be saved without personal holiness than they could be saved without personal existence. And why? because God’s own decree secures the means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means. The same gratuitous predestination which ordained the existence of the elect as men ordained their purification as saints: and they were ordained to both, in order to their being finally and completely saved in Jesus Christ with eternal glory. …. God resolved that Hezekiah should live fifteen years longer than Hezekiah expected. Hezekiah might therefore, according to Mr. Wesley’s plan have argued thus: “God has promised me fifteen years of life to come. Ergo, Live I shall, do what I will: die I shall not, do what I can. I will therefore neither eat, drink, nor sleep. Nay, I will tie a millstone round my neck and throw myself headlong into the sea, from the highest precipice I can find.” I answer, No. For it was as much comprised in God’s decree that Hezekiah should eat, drink, and sleep, during those fifteen years; and that he should not jump into the sea with a millstone about his neck; as that fifteen years should be added to his life. ⁶

In response to the charge that “the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can”, Toplady wrote:

… John offers a query: “Can they avoid it” [i.e. can the reprobate avoid punishment] “by any thing they do?” Let me also put a query to the querist: can you prove that any one of them ever did what he could to avoid it? If this cannot be proved, it does not follow that “the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.”⁷

Wesley was proceeding from the assumption that Man has a Free Will, and can repent any time he feels like it. But these verses teach otherwise:

John 1:13 who were born not of bloods, nor of [the] will of [the] flesh, nor of [the] will of man, but [were born] of God. [emph. mine -- CA]

Acts 5:31 This One God [has] exalted [as] a Ruler and Savior to His right [hand], to give to Israel repentance and remission of sins. [emph. mine -- CA]

Philippians 1:29 because it was granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf. [emph. mine -- CA]

That God does not give justifying faith to all is no excuse for those who continue in sin. No one is discouraged from repentance on the basis of their reprobation, just as no one is called to repentance on the basis of their election. Both of these assertions are really caricatures of biblical predestination. They are both false because, just as we must not approach the Father through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, so we must not approach the Father through the electing work of the Father himself. Rather, we are called to approach the Father through the atoning work of the Son.(Jn 14:6) No sinner should ever be discouraged from seeking the Lord for fear he might not be elect. Let that sinner look to the Crucifixion, not Election, to be saved. (Jn 12:32)

We have already examined the accusation that Predestination eliminates the accountability of Man. But here, Wesley asserts further that there can be no Final Judgment. Toplady responds:

For absolute predestination is the very thing that renders the future judgment certain: God hath appointed [εστησεν , hath fixed] a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained [ωρισεν , decreed:] Acts xvii. 31. –Nay, says Mr. John, “It requires more pains than all the men upon earth and all the devils in hell will ever be able to take:” viz. to reconcile the doctrine of reprobation with the doctrine of a judgment day. Be not quite so fiery, meek Mr. John. It might perhaps be for your interest … to find that reprobates cannot be judged. But feed not yourself with such delusive hope. I have already shewn that even the most flagrant sinners sin voluntarily, notwithstanding the inevitable accomplishment of God’s effective and permissive decrees. Now they who sin voluntarily are accountable: and accountable sinners are judicable: and if judicable, they are punishable. ⁸

Lastly there is the desperate accusation that Toplady could determine the number of elect and the number of reprobate all by himself. In his A Letter To The Rev. Mr. John Wesley ,Toplady had already written:

Let me likewise ask you when or where I ever presumed to ascertain the number of God’s elect? Point out the treatise and the page, wherein I assert that only “One in twenty of mankind are elected.” The book of life is not in your keeping, nor in mine. The Lord, and the Lord only, knoweth them that are his. He alone who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names, calleth also his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out, first from a state of sin into a state of grace, and then into the state of glory. Yet, … it is but too certain that in the Scriptures are such awful passages as these: Broad is the way and wide is the gate which leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat: while on the other hand, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few therebe that find it”. — “Many are called, but few chosen.” –”Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” — “There is a remnant, according to the election ofgrace”. Declarations of this tremendous import, instead of furnishing you with fuel for contention, and setting you on a presumptuous and fruitless calculation of the number that shall be saved or lost, should rather bring you on your knees before God, with your hand upon your breast and this cry in your lips: “Search me, O Lord, and try me; prove me also and examine my thoughts. Shew me to which class I belong. Give me solid proof that my name is in the Lamb’s Book of Life, by making it clear to me that I am in the faith.⁹

Now he adds:

In his printed letter to the late truly reverend and amiable Mr. Hervey, he charged that incomparable man, and the Calvinistic party in general, with holding the reprobation of “nine out of ten (See Wesley’s Preservative, p.235). In March 1770, we were charged with holding as above, that “nineteen in twenty are reprobated (See Wesley’s pretended Abridgment of Zanchius, p. 12.).” In February 1771, we were charged with holding the reprobation of “forty-nine out of fifty (See a Scurrilous Letter, signed John Wesley, in Lloyd’s Evening Post, for Friday, March 1, 1771.).” And now, about five months after, the glass is sunk 30 degrees lower, and in “The Consequence Proved” stands again at “nineteen out of twenty.” Next spring I suppose it will rise to ninety-nine out of a hundred.¹⁰

No predestinarian (so far as I am aware) has ever attempted to calculate the exact number of the elect; or the reprobate either, for that matter. This is simply a straw-man. Yet Wesley was so enamored with this straw-predestinarian that he wrote, in reference to the “The Gospel Magazine” (edited by Wm. Gadsby):

[It] intended to show, that God is not loving to every man; that his mercy is not over all his works; and, consequently, that Christ did not die for all, but for one in ten, for the elect only.

This comfortable doctrine, the sum of which, is, God before the foundation of the world, absolutely and irrevocably decreed, that “some men shall be saved, do what they will; and the rest damned, do what they can.” (14:279, General Preface to The Arminian Magazine: …1778-1791)

In 1778, Wesley published A Letter To The Rev. Mr. Thomas Maxfield, dated February 14. It ended with the following astounding question:

Bitterness and wrath, yea, low, base, virulent invective, both Mr. Richard and Mr. Rowland Hill (as well as Mr. Toplady) have poured out upon me, in great abundance. But where have I, in one single instance, returned them railing for railing? (11:483)

Later in 1778, Augustus Toplady became severely ill, and did not expect to live long. At this time, a rumor circulated that he had died in a delirium, recanting his Calvinism, and requesting to see John Wesley. On Sunday, June 14, to the great surprise of his congregation, Toplady appeared, ascended the pulpit, and was able to speak a few words. His testimony was printed a week later, under the title The Rev. Mr. Toplady’s Dying Avowal of his Religious Sentiments.

“Whereas, some time since, a wicked, scandalous and false report was diffused in various parts of this kingdom, by the followers of Mr. John Wesley; purporting, that I have changed some of my religious sentiments, especially such of them as relate more immediately to the doctrines of grace, I thought it my indispensible duty, on the Sunday after I received this information, which was the 13th of June last, publicly to declare myself … Now, I do publicly aver, that I have not, nor ever had, any such intention or desire; and that I most sincerely hope my last hours will be much better employed than in conversing with such a man. To which I added “so certain am I, of all that I have ever written, that were I sitting up in my dying bed with a pen and ink in my hand, and all the religious and controversial writings I ever published (more especially those relating to Mr. John Wesley, and the Arminian controversy), whether respecting facts or doctrines, could at once be displayed to my view,I should not strike out a single line relative to him or them.¹¹

He went on to say:

I was awakened in the month of August 1755, but not, as has been falsely reported, under Mr. John Wesley, or any preacher connected with him.¹²

Toplady died August 11th, 1778. Very soon after this a second rumor was circulated that he had “died in black despair, uttering the most horrible blasphemies;”. Richard Hill wrote a public letter to Wesley:

Nay, it was even positively alleged, that you told Mr. Thomas Robinson of Hilderthorpe, near Bridlington, in Yorkshire, and the Rev. Mr. Greaves, curate to Mr. Fletcher of Madeley, that the account published concerning Mr. Toplady’s death was a gross imposition on the public; for that he died in black despair, uttering the most horrible blasphemies; and that none of his friends were permitted to see him. …. Now, sir, as many living, respectable witnesses can testify that Mr. Toplady departed this life in full triumph of faith, … you are earnestly requested, for the satisfaction of your friends, thus publicly to assure the world, that you never advanced any thing of this sort to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Greaves, or to any other person; or else that you will produce your authority for your assertions; ¹³

A few months later, this letter was republished with a second letter to the same effect, and a list of names of people who had been present with Toplady at the time of his death. They were all “willing to testify upon oath, if required, that all the particulars published to the world in the late Memoirs, relative to the illness and death of the late Rev. Augustus Montague Toplady are strictly true;” This list included Toplady’s doctor and nurse. Here was a golden opportunity for Wesley to publicly clear himself from the charge of violating the Ninth Commandment, yet he never seems to have answered these letters.

To complete this study, let’s examine the influence that Wesley’s theology has had on 19th and 20th century Christendom; not only Methodism, but also other Arminian, and even some prominent Calvinists.

The Nov/Dec 1986 issue of The Trinity Review, was entitled “Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement, and the Race Back to Rome“. It carried the notice that the editor of The Trinity Review, John Robbins, had “Revised and adapted [it] from a pamphlet published in 1972, by The Australian Forum, an apparently defunct organization.” As this article is extremely valuable for its historical information, and analysis of the Charismatic movement, it will be quoted somewhat at length. While the words may not all have been originally written by John Robbins, he did “Revise and adapt” the pamphlet before publishing it in his newsletter, so it must be assumed that the views expressed there are his own. Robbins writes:

Eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century American Protestantism became heir of much of Methodism’s religious fervor. America developed its own style and brand of revivalism….

About the middle of the last century, the Methodist Church (which was then the largest church in the U.S.A.) experienced a remarkable resurgence of interest in the doctrine of the “second blessing.” The decade of the 1840s witnessed a flood of perfectionistic teaching in the Methodist Church. Leading pastors, bishops, and theologians led the movement, giving it institutional and intellectual respectability.

This development spilled over into other Protestant bodies, and by 1869 it became known as the “holiness movement.” Independent “holiness” publications sprang up all over the country. The movement spread to England and found expression in the renowned Keswick Convention. ….

In the 1890s the Methodist Church took an administrative stand against the holiness movement. Consequently, between the years 1890 and 1900, twenty-three holiness denominations were founded.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, many within the holiness movement began to speak about and seek for the “baptism of fire.” One branch of the holiness movement was called the “Fire-Baptized Holiness Church” (originating in Iowa in 1895 and led by Benjamin Irwin). Those receiving “the fire” would often shout, scream, fall in trances, or speak gibberish. This “baptism of fire” was regarded as a miraculous visitation of the Spirit that followed entire sanctification. …. The logical outcome of this trend was the appearance of the twentieth-century Pentecostal movement, which generally traces its beginnings to the ministry of Charles Parham at Topeka, Kansas in 1900. ….

From 1900 to 1960, the Pentecostal movement continued to grow outside the mainstream of Protestantism. …. Then about 1960 a remarkable change took place. Pentecostalism began to jump the denominational boundary lines and to penetrate the mainline Protestant churches. As John Sherrill says in his book, They Speak With Other Tongues, “the walls came tumbling down.” Soon there were thousands, and then millions, of Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and other Protestant Pentecostals. This interdenominational phase of the movement became known as the neo-Pentecostal, or charismatic, movement. It was no longer a separate denomination but an experience that transcended all denominational boundary lines. Those sharing the experience in different denominations saw themselves as having more in common with each other than with noncharismatics of the same church. Many confidently predicted that this was the beginning of the greatest revival the world had ever known.

Toward the end of the 1960s, the neo-Pentecostal movement made two further astounding strides. It entered the new youth culture and became known as the Jesus movement. (It was estimated that ninety percent of the Jesus People, as they were called, had some form of Pentecostal experience.) Many from the drug culture became “high” on Jesus instead of drugs. Then, to crown its success, the neo-Pentecostal movement entered the Roman Catholic Church in 1967. … Traditionally antipapal, the classical Pentecostal churches are changing their position since “Pentecost” has come to Rome.

And so we have come full circle. The cornerstone of John Wesley’s theology was Free Will; the cornerstone of Roman Catholic theology is Free Will. It took almost two hundred years for John Wesley’s “spiritual children” to realize it, but they are finally waking up to the fact that they are fundamentally Roman Catholics themselves. The only thing that really separated them from Roman Catholics was personal preference: Catholics prefer a quiet, solemn service, while Charismatics prefer to swing from the chandeliers. But when you eliminate all the external differences, and personal preferences, and get down to what really matters, they both share the same false theology, and the same false gospel. This is the lesson that the current charismatic “race back to Rome” ought to be telling us.

So, have Calvinists learned this lesson? Have they seen the fact that Wesley and his fellow Arminians embraced Roman Catholicism, and therefore turned away from Wesleyan-Arminians as those who speak peace to the enemies of Christ? We have already seen that George Whitefield spoke peace to Wesley, in his famous Letter to Wesley &c. Let’s take one more look at that letter:

Reverend and very dear Brother, …. O be not angry with me, dear and honoured Sir, if I now deliver my soul by telling you that I think in this you greatly err. …. No, dear Sir, you mistake. …. Dear Sir, for Jesus Christ’s sake, consider how you dishonor God by denying election. …. Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! …. God knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul. There I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done. … Your affectionate, though unworthy, brother and servant in Christ, George Whitefield.¹

Here, Whitefield unequivocally states that although Wesley “dishonor[s] God by denying election”, he still considers Wesley to be saved. Elsewhere in this letter, Whitefield states that Wesley’s belief in universal redemption “is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood,” yet he still believes that he and Wesley are brothers, and that they have the same father. Like so many Calvinists, Whitefield had all the pieces about the spiritual state of John Wesley, yet steadfastly continued to speak peace to him.

It seems that Whitefield began with the assumption that Wesley was saved, and based on this assumption, came to the conclusion that regenerate people can believe doctrines that bring “the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood.” Yet how is it that God, who (in Whitefield’s estimation) is mighty to move the wind and waves, create the world and all its inhabitants, and even convert the will of the unregenerate sinner, is yet somewhow powerless to prevent his children from believing things that bring “the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood”? How is it that God is able to miraculously turn the will of the sinner from hating the Gospel to loving the Gospel (Pro 21:1, John 6:44, Acts 13:48), but then suddenly becomes powerless to cause his children to believe doctrines that honor and magnify his grace? Seemingly, Whitefield justified this willful blindness, by stating that Wesley will inevitably believe Election, if not in this life, then at least when he gets to Heaven. But this theory simply begs the question: how is God able to make Wesley believe the essential doctrines of the Gospel when he gets to Heaven, but unable to do it on Earth?

George Whitefield has a strong reputation as a fiery evangelist, and a pious and humble Calvinist. Yet Whitefield is not above Paul the Apostle, who commended the Bereans for refusing to judge his doctrine based on his reputation, and instead judging it based on how it conformed to Scripture (Acts 17:11). Nor is Whitefield greater than Isaiah, who said “To the Law, and to the Testimony! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no dawn to them.” Let Whitefield be judged by the same standard as John Wesley, Paul the Apostle, and Isaiah the prophet. Let Whitefield’s doctrine be judged by Scripture, not his reputation.

Another man, widely regarded by Calvinists as a pillar of orthodoxy is Charles H. Spurgeon. Here is Spurgeon on the spiritual state of John Wesley:

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy.

Here again, we should not judge Spurgeon’s doctrine by his reputation, any more than we should judge Wesley’s by his reputation. Both men, and their doctrines as well, should be judged by Scripture. What does the Scripture say about those who had outward “self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God,” but preached doctrines that bring “the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood”?

Matt 23: (15) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you go about the sea and the dry [land] to make one proselyte; and when he has become so, you make him twofold more a son of Hell than yourselves. …. (23) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left aside the weightier [matters] of the Law: judgment, and mercy, and faith.

Rom 10: (1) Brothers, truly my heart’s pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for [it] to be saved. (2) For I testify to them that they have a zeal to God, but not according to knowledge.

Rev 2: (14) But I have a few things against you, that you have there, those holding the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to throw a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat idol sacrifices, and to commit fornication. (15) So you also have those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Let those who “dishonor God by denying election” be judged by their doctrine, not their character, experiences, or even their “self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and [supposed] communion with God.”

Another man considered to be a “giant” among Calvinists is D.M. Lloyd-Jones. Here is an excerpt from his book The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors:

One of the greatest proofs of the truth of the doctrines emphasized by Calvin, what is known as ‘Calvinism’ – though I have already said I do not like these terms – is John Wesley. He was a man who was saved in spite of his muddled and erroneous thinking. The grace of God saved him in spite of himself. That is Calvinist! If you say, as a Calvinist, that a man is saved by his understanding of doctrine you are denying Calvinism. He is not. We are all saved in spite of what we are in every respect. Thus it comes to pass that men who can be so muddled, because they bring in their own human reason, as John Wesley and others did, are saved men and Christians, as all of us are, because it is ‘all of the grace of God’ and in spite of us.

At this point, Lloyd-Jones is knocking down straw men. No one that I am aware of has ever taught “that a man is saved by his understanding of doctrine.” This is not why a Christian believes that Wesley was unsaved. We maintain that Wesley’s false gospel was not the cause, but the evidence of his lost state. Although it is certainly true that God saves us when our thinking about him is “muddled and erroneous”, it is equally true that he doesn’t leave us in such “muddled and erroneous” thinking. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify Christ in the hearts of his people, not teach doctrines that bring reproach on him! To deny that is fundamentally to deny the doctrine of Irresistible Grace; so real understanding of the doctrines of Grace requires us to maintain that Wesley’s “muddled and erroneous” gospel resulted from his lost state, not “the grace of God” as Lloyd-Jones teaches.

Returning to the Trinity Review article mentioned above, we have seen what editor John Robbins has written about the Holiness/Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and their “race” back to Rome. But let us examine more closely what Robbins writes about John Wesley himself, in the same article:

John Wesley believed in justification by faith. His “long suit,” however, was sanctification. He had been deeply influenced by Moravian Pietism and certain of the great Roman Catholic mystics. But Wesley’s emphasis on sanctification was the weakness of the Methodist movement. Along with justification by the blood of Christ, Wesley emphasized the renewing power of the Holy Spirit in conforming lives to true obedience to the law of God. Apart from sanctified obedience to the law of God, Wesley declared that no soul would retain the blessing of justification.

Now it must be noted that John Robbins has a strong reputation for his logic, and strong Calvinistic orthodoxy. He has been severely criticized, and even persecuted for his commitment to Reformation principles. However, the above paragraph displays exactly the problem with Robbins’ style of (seemingly intolerant, but actually) Tolerant Calvinism. Here again, Robbins should be judged by his doctrine as compared with Scripture, not his reputation.

First, notice Robbins states that “Wesley believed in justification by faith.” Well, of course he did; but then, so does the Roman Catholic church! What neither Wesley nor the Roman church believed in was justification by faith alone! If the authors of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document are to be criticized for ignoring that critical word alone, then so should John Wesley. And if Wesley should be criticized for ignoring that crucial word (alone), then Robbins should be doubly criticized for it. Robbins claims to believe in Justification by Faith Alone, and to defend it as a Reformation distinctive. He, of all people, should have understood the fatal consequences of ignoring it. Yet this is exactly what he did.

In private correspondence, Robbins has written:

Second, can an Arminian get the doctrine of Justification straight? Yes, considered all by itself, he can. He can understand the resurrection, imputation, substitution, the alien righteousness of Christ, and believe them. Many Arminians do not, but it is theoretically possible for one to do so.

Considering the last sentence of this quote, Robbins might not have necessarily defend Wesley. But the first part of the quote leads us to believe that Robbins could not automatically say that Wesley was lost, based on Wesley’s belief in Arminianism. According to Robbins, Arminianism doesn’t necessarily reveal an unregenerate heart, because an Arminian could “get the doctrine of Justification straight.”

Yet, this is effectively saying that an Arminian can be saved if he is not an Arminian. An Arminian by definition believes in Free Will, and all of Wesley’s theology followed logically from that one doctrine. It was this doctrine that made Wesley proclaim a “Gospel” conditioned on the sinner, as well as Sinless Perfection, Universal Atonement, and every other one of his heresies. Therefore, the question must be asked, if Wesley believed in Justification by Faith, but not Justification by Faith Alone, did he really believe in Justification by Faith? For that matter, did he really believe in “the resurrection, imputation, substitution, [or] the alien righteousness of Christ”? I answer, Not if he didn’t believe what the Bible teaches about these concepts; not if he believed in a Justification that was conditioned on the sinner. We have already seen that Wesley did not believe in the Biblical definitions of these essential doctrines. Let it be noted here, that this is a logical consequence of the fact that Wesley believed in Free Will. The problem was not simply that his “emphasis” was on some doctrine other than the Gospel. It was that his Gospel was a false Gospel!

Elsewhere in the article (Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement, and the Race Back to Rome) Robbins makes a connection between Wesley’s “emphasis” on sanctification, and the “emphasis” of the Anabaptists of the German Reformation. He goes on to write:

Cried the “Spirit-filled” leaders on being granted an interview with Luther, “The Spirit! The Spirit!” The Reformer was decidedly unimpressed. “I slap your spirit on the snout,” he thundered. He saw that the great truth of justification by faith alone was diametrically opposed to these “German prophets,” as he styled them.

Robbins says that “justification by faith alone was diametrically opposed to” the Anabaptist theology. But of Wesley, he can only say that Wesley’s “emphasis” was on the wrong subject. Yet Robbins also realizes that Wesley and the Anabaptists had essentially the same theology. Now how can a mere “emphasis” be “diametrically opposed” to anything? Robbins understands that these “German prophets” had a different spirit than the Holy Spirit, but he refuses to say the same about Wesley and his fellow Arminians. This is blatantly speaking peace where there is no peace (Jer 6:14 & 8:11).

This then has been the response that mainstream Calvinism has made to Wesley’s heretical “Gospel”, his exalted view of Man, and his blasphemous view of God. Let this compromising and “tolerant” Calvinism be as anathema as Wesley’s Arminianism.

Jer 6:14 They have also healed the break of My people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace.

Amos 3:3 Will two walk together unless they are agreed?

Matt 15:14 Leave them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should announce a gospel to you beside what we preached to you, let him be accursed.

2 John 11 For the [one] speaking a greeting shares in his evil works.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the question must be asked, should Wesley’s views be tolerated in the professing church today? Is his Arminianism really as bad as I’ve made it out to be?

The answer is: No, Arminianism should not be tolerated in the professing church, because it really is as bad as I’ve made it out to be. Wesley had a deficient view of sin, and personal accountability, a deficient view of the authority of Scripture, a blasphemous view of God, a blasphemous view of the Atonement, and all based on his exalted view of Man. The bitterness with which he treated Toplady and others who would not speak peace to him was a result of their touching his idol, Free Will. Wesley clearly put sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet; he clearly hated the truth and loved the lie. All of these evidences are clear proof that Wesley was lost, and unless he had some kind of deathbed conversion that has never been recorded, went to Hell when he died. This is a very solemn matter, and it is made the more solemn when we realize that there were plenty of Moderate Calvinists, such as George Whitefield, right there with Wesley, to make him feel a bit more comfortable on his way to Hell. If we would avoid the same conclusion for ourselves, we must have no peace with the idol Free Will whatsoever. We must have no fellowship with Arminians, nor give them the slightest encouragement to continue in their present spiritual state. We must recognize that they are lost, and we must tell them so. As inhumanly cruel as that probably sounds to most people, allowing Arminians to go complacently on in their unregenerate state is the true cruelty.

Furthermore, we must also be logically consistent with ourselves! Wesley easily saw through the smoke screen of Passive Reprobation that certain Calvinists have tried to send up. In attempting such theological illusions, Calvinists succeed in fooling only themselves. Let us have done with such nonsense once and for all. Let us never be ashamed to boldly proclaim the truth of God, whether it offends our own flesh or not.

John Wesley was indeed a man with a consistent theology, that was utterly Satanic. The fact that he did so many “good deeds” only increases his condemnation. The fact that he garnered so many “converts” only increases his guilt, for they were encouraged in the false hope of a false gospel. And, as we have seen, Wesley made no attempt to hide his wicked views. Truly, this wolf made no attempt even to dress himself as a sheep. Let us therefore refuse to be a partaker of his evil deeds, but instead even expose them (Eph 5:11).

As with baptism, and other matters of church government, the Christian Confession of Faith does not have much to say about the doctrine of the end times. This is another matter where Christians can disagree, because this doctrine has little bearing on the doctrine of the Gospel. Here is what the Confession does have to say on the matter:

Jesus Christ will return from Heaven as He promised, the dead will be resurrected, and the whole world will be judged, all at God’s appointed time. [Psa 96:13; Dan 7:9-14; 12:1-2; Mat 16:27; 25:31-46; Mar 4:22; 13:24-27; Joh 5:28-29; Act 1:11; 17:31; 24:15; 1Co 15:23-25; 2Co 5:10; 1Th 4:15-17; 2Th 1:7-10; 2Ti 4:1; Heb 9:27-28; 2Pe 3:10-12; Rev 1:7-8; 20:11-13]¹

The Confession then goes on to summarize the biblical teaching about Heaven and Hell.

All for whom Jesus Christ did not die will live eternally in the pit of Hell and will be eternally tormented for their sins. Souls who are tormented in the next life will never suffer enough to even begin to pay for as much as one sin. Scripture rejects the lie that souls in Hell cease to exist or cease to be tormented, as this is a denial that offending the infinitely holy God is an infinite crime deserving of an infinite punishment. Scripture also rejects the lie of Purgatory as well as the lie that those who perish denying the doctrines of the gospel will finally accept them in heaven. [Deu 32:22,41; Psa 9:17; Pro 27:20; Isa 33:14; Dan 12:2; Mat 3:12; 5:22; 7:21-23; 10:28; 11:22-24; 13:41-42; 25:30,46; Mar 9:42-48; Luk 16:23-24,26; Joh 3:36; 10:11,26; 12:48; Rom 2:5-9; 6:23; Gal 3:10; 2Th 1:5-9; Heb 10:26-27; 2Pe 3:7; Jud 6-7; Rev 14:9-11; 19:2-3; 20:14-15]

All for whom Jesus Christ died will live eternally in Heaven in perfect fellowship with God, as He promised them. The final state of the Church will be eternal glory with her King and Husband. He will wipe every tear from her eyes and will entirely remove all indwelling sin from her. She will worship Him in the presence of His visible glory for all eternity. [Psa 49:15; 116:8; Isa 25:8; Dan 12:2; Mat 19:29; 25:34,46; Luk 18:29-30; Joh 3:15-16; 3:36; 4:14; 6:40,47, 54; 10:28; 14:2-3; 17:2-3; Rom 2:7; 6:22-23; 8:30; 1Co 15:53-54; Gal 6:8; Phi 3:20-21; Col 3:4; Tit 1:2; 2:13; 3:7; 1Pe 1:4; 2Pe 3:13; 1Jo 2:25,28; 3:2; Rev 14:1-5; 21:2-4,22-27; 22:1-5]²

It must be admitted that Wesley had a sound view of Heaven and Hell³. And despite believing in an intermediate state for departed souls⁴, he rejected the doctrine of purgatory (ie. that departed souls can atone for sin in the next life by their suffering⁵).

But at this point there is a major discrepancy in Wesley’s thinking. It has already been shown that he believed that the saints were not preserved from falling away in this present life by God. So how does it happen that they are then preserved from falling away when they are in Heaven? After all, to use Wesley’s own words:

Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones. Therefore, (with reverence [sic] be it spoken,) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. (6:318, Sermon 67 On Divine Providence)

So, according to Wesley’s principles, if God took away their liberty, men could not be virtuous even in Heaven. And if their liberty remains, then is it possible for a person to sin in Heaven? If yes, then what happens to that person when he sins? Is he sent immediately and irrevocably to Hell?

But if not, then what becomes of the person’s all-important liberty? Is it taken away? Is it then possible for him to do anything virtuous (in Wesley’s terms)?

And what of those who are in Hell? Is their liberty taken away? If yes, then the full force of Wesley’s arguments against predestination come down against him:

Men are as free in believing or not believing as if he [God] did not know it at all. Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be held accountable …. (6:227, Sermon 58 On Predestination)

As he has called us to holiness, he is undoubtedly willing as well as able, to work this holiness in us. For he cannot mock his helpless creatures, calling us to receive what he never intends to give. (6:416, Sermon 76 On Perfection)

But what if the person’s all-important liberty is not taken away in Hell? What if someone in Hell sincerely repents and believes the Gospel he had scorned in life

The God of love is willing to save all the souls that he has made. This he has proclaimed to them in his word, together with the terms of salvation revealed by the Son of his love, who gave his own life that they that believe in him might have everlasting life. And for these he has prepared a kingdom from the foundation of the world. But he will not force them to accept of it; he leaves them in the hands of their own counsel; (7:317, Sermon 120 The Wedding Garment, Mar. 26 1790)

Wesley might answer that noone in Hell will sincerely repent. But how can he know that? Of all the millions and millions of souls in Hell, might there not at least be a few that sincerely repented? If nothing in this life could convince a man to sincerely repent of his sins, surely the fires of Hell would do the trick. And after all, doesn’t God (according to Wesley) love them and long for their salvation? How can he leave them screaming in the torments of Hell, when he so desperately wants to save them?

The very thought of this eternal chaos, souls in Hell making themselves fit for Heaven, and souls in Heaven making themselves fit for Hell, ought to convince us, once and for all, of the folly of placing Man’s need to be saved above God’s need to be glorified. It is God who preserves his elect from falling away from him, and it is God who hardens the reprobate in their sins. It is God who is glorified in the salvation of his people, and it is God who is glorified in the damnation of his enemies.

The Judgement Day & Future Life

Some of Wesley’s views regarding the afterlife can only be described as silly. For instance, he held that the day of judgement would last a thousand years, if not many thousands:

And from this very expression [2 Pet 3:8], some of the ancient Fathers drew the inference, that what is commonly called the day of judgment would be indeed a thousand years: And it seems they did not go beyond the truth; nay probably they did not come up to it. For if we consider the number of persons who are to be judged, and of actions which are to be inquired into, it does not appear, that a thousand years will suffice for the transactions of that day; so that it may not improbably comprise several thousand years. (5:174, Sermon 15 The Great Assize)

Even more bizarre is the view that there would be an afterlife for animals. In his sermon The General Deliverance, he begins by speculating about the condition of animals before the Fall, then goes on to describe the effect of the Fall upon their condition:

If the Creator and Father of every living thing is rich in mercy towards all; if he does not overlook or despise any of the works of his own hands; if he wills even the meanest of them to be happy, according to their degree; how comes it to pass, that such a complication of evils oppresses, yea overwhelms them? …. And as a loving obedience to God was the perfection of man, so a loving obedience to man was the perfection of brutes. And as long as they continued in this, they were happy after their kind; happy in the right state and the right use of their respective faculties. Yea, and so long they had some shadowy resemblance of even moral goodness. For they had gratitude to man for benefits received, and a reverence for him. They had likewise a kind of benevolence to each other. …. Perhaps insects and worms had then as much understanding as the most intelligent brutes have now. …. As man is deprived of his perfection, his loving obedience to God; so brutes are deprived of their perfection, their loving obedience to man.” (6:242-6, Sermon 60 The General Deliverance, emph. in orig.).

Then, he further speculates about the effect of the resurrection on the “brute creation”:

But will “the creature,” will even the brute creation, always remain in this deplorable condition? …. As a recompence for what they once suffered, while under the “bondage of corruption,” when God has “renewed the face of the earth,” and their corruptible body has put on incorruption, thy shall enjoy happiness suited to their state, without alloy, without interruption, and without end. But though I doubt not that the Father of All has a tender regard for even his lowest creatures, and that, in consequince of this, he will make them large amends for all they suffer while under their present bondage; …. May I be permitted to mention here a conjecture concerning the brute creation? What if it should then please the all-wise, all-greacious Creator to raise them higher in the scale of beings? What, if it should please him, when he makes us “equal to angels,” to make them what we are now, — creatures capable of God; capable of knowing and loving and enjoying the Author of their being? …. something better remains after death for these poor creatures also;” (6:248-51 , Sermon 60 The General Deliverance)

But Wesley did not hold these views merely for comic relief. He is in fact tying up some loose ends of his theology. As we have seen, Wesley had a wicked and idolatrous view of God. He worshiped a God after his own image. As such, Wesley’s “God” was responsible to treat all people the way Wesley himself was responsible to treat them — with fairness and equality. Therefore, Wesley’s “God” could not be allowed to simply divide the whole world into two classes and summarily pass sentence on half of them (Mt 25:32-3); he was responsible to try them all separately, and hear each case individually.

Further, Wesley’s “God” was not allowed to simply do as he will with the creatures he has made. He is even responsible to treat the animals fairly. In regard to the doctrine of Animal Resurrection, Wesley went on to say:

May it not answer another end; namely, furnish us with a full answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suffering numberless creatures that never had sinned to be so severely punished? (6:251 , Sermon 60 The General Deliverance, emph. mine)

Notice the word “plausible”! How is it possible that there could be a plausible objection to the justice of God?!?! Only if Wesley’s God is not the God of Holy Scripture!!

Isa 45:6-7 …that they may know from the rising of the sun, and to the sunset, that [there is] none besides Me; I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else; forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil.

Rom 9:20-21 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the [One] forming [it], Why did You make me like this? Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, …?

Whatever God does is just, by virtue of the fact that it is God who does it. There is no such thing as a “plausible objection” against the justice of God, because this presupposes that there is a standard of right and wrong, independent, and even superior, to God himself. But on the contrary, the will of God is itself the standard of right and wrong. Wesley’s view of God was, therefore, utterly blasphemous.