March 11, 2012

Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

Posted in Peter Pike tagged , , , , , at 4:00 am by chriswadams

Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.

This is the fourth round of letters between Mr. Pike and I.

Our 1st exchange;

Our 2nd exchange;

Our 3rd exchange.

Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.

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

From: <debate@thecalvinist.com>

To: <Christopher Adams>

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: Child of Satan?

Actually, Mr. Adams, I am being very *DELIBERATE* in my actions here. I have a reason for what I am doing. You accused *ME* of being a child of Satan. It does not matter what the Arminian believes. It matters what *I* believe, because your comments were directed *AT ME*.

You wrote:

<<< As written, I agree with your post on 11/14/02. The problem is that you don’t think a person has to believe it to be considered regenerate. >>>

Remember what is going on here, Mr. Adams. You called me a child of Satan. You have as much as said that I am damned and unregenerate. All this DESPITE the fact that you agree with everything I said in my post. I just gave you the mechanics of what God does to save a person, and it is *IDENTICAL* to your beliefs (or so you claim)–and yet I am damned? And for what? Simply because I said that a person does not have to agree with Reformed Soteriology to be saved.

Let’s examine why I say this using my previous post from 11/14/02.

I wrote:

<<< God the Father, in eternity past, did foreordain all things that come to pass. He chose a certain people, not on the basis of anything found in them, but solely on His good pleasure. Christ was slain (before the foundation of the earth) for their sins, meaning both Christ’s death and all whom God intended to save were in mind before the earth was even created. Christ came to accomplish that purpose. He lived a perfect life so His righteousness would be imputed to the Elect. He died to take the penalty of sin in place of the Elect. >>>

Note–there is absolutely *NOTHING* here that is conditional upon the Elect. All of this is done through God. Christ had *ALL* the Elect in mind when He died on the cross. *ALL* their sins were placed on Him, and His righteousness was imputed to them *AT THE CROSS*. Therefore, it is all settled and when Christ said, “It is finished” He meant it.

Now when Christ died on the cross, were His Elect saved *AT THAT POINT*? Look at it from the aspect of the atonement. The Elect’s sins have been *PUNISHED* in Christ. The Elect have been imputed the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s death *CANNOT* be ineffective, and therefore *IF* it is the atonement that saves, all the Elect are saved at that point.

But if that were true, then you see that the Elect are saved *NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE* because salvation does not depend on belief at all, but on whether or not Christ died *FOR* them. Therefore, it would not MATTER what anyone believed because if Christ atoned for thier sins when He died on the cross, then they are saved no matter what. So if you accept this notion, then you have already proven me right in saying that salvation is *NOT* dependent upon knowledge.

I do not accept that notion of the atonement, however, so let me continue:

<<< Since God ordains the means as well as the end, He ordains that the Elect shall be justifed by faith (alone) in the Gospel (justification being the actual judicial declaration by which God declares a sinner just). >>>

Justification, Mr. Adams, is the point when God *LEGALLY* declares that a sinner is just. That is, while Christ died on the cross and His death served as an atonement for the sins of the Elect, the Elect person himself is not *ACTUALLY* declared just in the sight of God until he is justified. Therefore, before justification, the Elect is a sinner and is viewed as such–*even though Christ already died for him!* This is why salvation is by grace *THROUGH* faith, and this is why it is *FAITH* that justifies the sinner, *NOT* the atonement.

We continue:

<<<He then appoints preachers, etc, to proclaim the Gospel and brings them to the Elect. When the Elect hear the Gospel, the Spirit regenerates them because, like all men, the Elect are born depraved. >>>

Because the Elect are born depraved, they *NEED* to be regenerated. Therefore, Christ’s death on the cross has not yet saved them. They are NOT regenerate, they are NOT justified, they are NOT saved–EVEN THOUGH CHRIST DIED FOR THEM. Though they *WILL* be saved, the atonement itself does not save them or they would *ALREADY* be saved!

<<< The regenerated man responds in faith to the Gospel, whereby the Father justifies him. The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action. Thus, there is no condemnation for those who are justified even though there is no subjective change in the person at this point! The Spirit then works in the life of a justified person to sanctify that person and conform him to Christ. >>>

I must add something I forgot in the first time I posted this. “The regenerated man responds in faith, that faith *ALSO* being a gift of God, to the Gospel.”

Now what is key about this? The Elect is dead in sins. The Spirit regenerates him. He is “born again” at that point. He *RESPONDS* in faith to the Gospel, because God has enabled him to do so. God has given him faith. When faith is present, God declares the sinner “justified.”

But the key is this: “The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action.” Why is this important? Because justification occurs apart from works and is not dependent upon them. It occurs apart from anything that man does. Look at the chain:

The Elect are *RAISED* to spiritual life by the Spirit. God gives them faith. God declares them justified by the basis of their faith. THEN: Man does good works.

At what point does man enter the equation? *AFTER* he is already justified! And because justification does not subjectively change a person, that means (as Luther illustrated in his snow-covered dung heap analogy) that the sinner is *STILL* intrinsically a sinner, but he has been covered with a blanket of righteousness so that God does not *SEE* his sin, but instead sees Christ’s righteousness.

Thankfully, the Spirit doesn’t leave us in this condition, but then moves to change us from a pile of dung into a pile of gold through the work of Sanctification. But at the point of conversion, the Elect is simply a person who is *SUBJECTIVELY* a sinner, yet *LEGALLY* righteous.

What does all this mean? It’s really quite simple. When Christ died on the cross, He died *SPECIFICALLY* for the Elect, and God makes sure that *ALL* His Elect are saved. They are *NOT* saved by the atonement itself, but they are saved when, by a faith given to them by the Father, they are justified. Until that time, they are *NOT* saved, even though the end conclusion is unavoidable.

Now one more point. You wrote:

<<< On 11/15/02, you asked: “Is a person saved the moment he is justified?” If by “saved” you mean “regenerated”, I would say yes. >>>

If regeneration is the same as salvation, then you here have regeneration occuring *AFTER* justification (after all, salvation entails God’s declaration that a sinner is just), which means that regeneration occurs *AFTER* faith because justification is *BY FAITH*. In other words, what you said above makes faith a work man does *BEFORE* he is regenerated. And that, as we all know, is impossible if faith is a gift from God!

Now, look over everything I have written and ask yourself: *WHERE* in this process does it become necessary for the Elect to understand the entire process of salvation in order to *BE* saved? And in regards to calling *ME* a child of Satan, consider the following:

If it is true that I am Elect and Christ died *FOR ME* on the cross, then what gives *YOU* the right to say I am damned? If you believe I *CAN* be saved in the future, then you are saying yourself that Christ’s atoning work on the cross *DOES NOT SAVE*. Rather, something else must happen too (ie: justification). So, unless you are going to say that every Elect individual is saved *FROM BIRTH* then you do not believe in an atonement that saves and by your own standards you are damned! But if you say that the Elect are saved from birth and yet they STILL live their life (before justification) as if they were sinners, then salvation is *NOT* dependant upon whether or not a person believes the atonement because the Elect are saved from birth DESPITE the fact that they do not believe the atonement. In either case, Iam proven right and you are proven wrong.

PWP

http://www.thecalvinist.com

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

From: “Christopher Adams”

To: “<debate@thecalvinist.com>”

Subject: Child of Satan?

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:44:50 -0500

Mr. Pike:

Let me make a few things clear.

1. I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. Nowhere is this idea to be found on the OTC website. You have made this accusation several times, several times I have asked for proof, yet you continue to simply make accusations. I have already pointed out an article that answers this accusation: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm

2. I have NEVER said you were damned. I DID say that you are a son of Satan, ie. unregenerate. This does not mean you are predestined for Hell, only that you are not now regenerate. Please see this article: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/fte34.htm

3. I made the accusation that you are unregenerate because you speak peace to unregenerate people.

“I firmly believe (unlike the hypercalvinists, such as those folks at www.outsidethecamp.org) that Arminians are saved, so long as they are actually Arminians and not Pelagians. “

http://www.thecalvinist.com/theology/ 9/20/02

4. Therefore, what Arminians believe really does make a difference, because you speak peace to them. If they are regenerate, then I have sinned grievously. But if they are unregenerate, then you, as well as they, are lost (Jer 8:11, 2Jn 10-11). This is why I have asked you several times what the Arminians believe about the Atonement. Oddly enough you STILL haven’t answered those questions.

You speak peace to Arminians knowing how blasphemous their theology is. Your website says:

“Arminianism itself is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be.” 10/22/02

Moving from a “man-based theology” to a “God-based theology” is NOT a matter of “growing in grace”, or becoming more Christ-like. It is a matter of BELIEVING THE GOSPEL (Isa 45:20, Rom 1:16 & 10:3). Arminians not only “elevate [themselves] above what man should be”, they also spit in the face of Jesus Christ, and count his blood and his cross as POWERLESS to save. They are ENEMIES of God. And yet you count them as your friends. They are children of the devil, and you count them as your brothers. Is it starting to become clear why I called you a child of Satan?

Now for some things you wrote in your latest post (11/20/02):

“Look at it from the aspect of the atonement. The Elect’s sins have been *PUNISHED* in Christ. The Elect have been imputed the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s death *CANNOT* be ineffective, and therefore *IF* it is the atonement that saves, all the Elect are saved at that point.”

and

“Note–there is absolutely *NOTHING* here that is conditional upon the Elect. All of this is done through God. Christ had *ALL* the Elect in mind when He died on the cross. *ALL* their sins were placed on Him, and His righteousness was imputed to them *AT THE CROSS*. Therefore, it is all settled and when Christ said, “It is finished” He meant it.”

and

“When Christ died on the cross, He died *SPECIFICALLY* for the Elect, and God makes sure that *ALL* His Elect are saved. They are *NOT* saved by the atonement itself, but they are saved when, by a faith given to them by the Father, they are justified. “

Yes, I agree. But you make all these points INVALID because you think a person (the Arminian) can be judged saved when they believe the exact OPPOSITE. Why in the world would God regenerate a person, and then cause that person to believe that the Christ did *not* die specifically for the elect, that it is *not* all settled, that he did *not* have the elect in mind, etc. etc.? In short, why would God regenerate a person WITHOUT glorifying himself in that person’s heart?

Again, you wrote: “But if that were true, then you see that the Elect are saved *NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE* because salvation does not depend on belief at all, but on whether or not Christ died *FOR* them. Therefore, it would not MATTER what anyone believed because if Christ atoned for thier sins when He died on the cross, then they are saved no matter what.”

If this were true, then not only would we have to reserve judgement concerning Arminians, but also Pelagians, Muslims, atheists, Satanists, and child-molesters. Mr. Pike, noone is saved BECAUSE of what they believe, but God ***ALWAYS*** glorifies himself in the hearts of his regenerate people, by causing them to believe the GOSPEL, a Gospel which glorifies him as a just God and a Savior. The Arminian ‘gospel’ does the exact OPPOSITE, as you yourself have testified. This is why I judge Arminians lost (and consequently you, since you embrace them as brothers).

Again you wrote: “Now, look over everything I have written and ask yourself: *WHERE* in this process does it become necessary for the Elect to understand the entire process of salvation in order to *BE* saved?”

Mr. Pike, my answer is: NOWHERE. I have never said this, or even implied it. Now, kindly answer one of my questions: Why would God regenerate a person *without* glorifying himself in that person’s heart?

Again, you wrote: “If it is true that I am Elect and Christ died *FOR ME* on the cross, then what gives *YOU* the right to say I am damned? “

Mr. Pike, as I stated above, this is SLANDER. Either repent of this sin, or produce some proof.

I have never said you are damned, but that you are unregenerate. *IF* you are one of the elect, God has *not yet* regenerated you. Perhaps he will use me to do it, perhaps not. But until he does, you have *NO* reason to think that Christ did in fact die for you.

Christopher Adams.

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

For more information please see:

Speaking Peace

“Calvinists” Forum

Deadly Ignorance

Gospel Atonement

Why we no longer endorse the Trinity Foundation

December 25, 2011

Ken Lokken vs. the Gospel, pt. 2

Posted in Anthony Buzzard, Ken Lokken tagged , , , , , , , , at 4:00 am by chriswadams

A few months ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a group of people, led by Anthony Buzzard and Ken Lokken. What follows is my second post to that e-mail group.

=========

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:

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 )

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.

In regard to the section of the Confession dealing with the divinity of Christ, you wrote:”(I do not recognise your confession of faith based on haphazard scripture.  Anyone can take a group of scriptures and make them what they want them to appear.  the OT and the new agree as one.  Hear o’ Isreal the Lord thy God is one Lord.  Tell Moses who knew God face to face that God is 3 persons, or the prophets that the Messiah would be God himself in the flesh.  Paul the great theologian never said grace, mercy and peace from god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost.  It was always grace, mercy peace from God the Father of OUR lord Jesus Christ(Messiah).  In the early church they argued over many issues..the diety of Jesus nor the teaching of trinity ever came up.  salvation is of the Jews and no Jew would have thought Jesus the messiah as God..much less that God was 3 persons in one) “

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.

December 18, 2011

Ken Lokken vs. the Gospel, pt. 1

Posted in Anthony Buzzard, Ken Lokken tagged , , , , , , , at 4:00 am by chriswadams

A few months ago, I had an e-mail exchange with a group of people, led by Anthony Buzzard and Ken Lokken. Ken initiated the exchange. What follows is my first post to that e-mail group.

==========

Ken –

What did you mean when you wrote this:

“At the appointed time Jesus (that Messiah) was born of the virgin Mary supernaturally. The announcement was made by an angel to Mary that she would give birth to a son.  Mary not knowing a man asked how.  The angel said that the holy Spirit of God would come upon her.  That God himself would be his father and for that reason he shall be called the son of God.  At that precise Jesus began his existence.”

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”).

October 27, 2011

John Wesley vs. the Gospel, pt. 6

Posted in John Wesley tagged , , , , , , at 2:59 am by chriswadams

V. Soteriology – The Doctrine of Salvation

By far the most important doctrine taught by Wesley was his gospel. The doctrines examined above are all foundational to this one. The gospel a man believes is that which reveals his heart; it reveals the grounds upon which he is resting for salvation and peace with God. A man can believe many wrong things (in Eschatology, or Ecclesiology, for example), but if he believes the Gospel, he will go to Heaven. And a man can be correct in everything else, but if he does not believe the Gospel, he will go to Hell. It is as clear cut as that. The Gospel is the one thing that matters above all else.

Here is how the Christian Confession of Faith defines the Gospel:

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; Psa 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; Isa 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; Rom 3:21-26; Rom 4:5-8; Rom 4:13-25; Rom 10:4; Rom 10:15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 2Co 5:21; Eph 1:3-23; Eph 2:1-22; Eph 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:9-10; Heb 10:4-17]1

As I have said, the Gospel is not merely the life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It includes that, but it involves more; specifically, why he endured a life, death, burial, and resurrection. The Gospel is God’s promise to save sinners, giving them remission of sins, fellowship with himself, and the full inheritance of grace, exclusively based on the righteousness established by Jesus Christ alone (Gen 3:15, Isa 53:5, Rom 3:21-23, I Pet 3:18). As you can see, there are a lot of implications to this message. Any message that bases salvation, or any part of it, to any degree on the sinner is a false gospel that can only lead its followers to hell (Matt 15:14).

It is by this message, this Gospel, that Wesley’s “gospel” must be judged, not the sinful desires and inclinations of our own hearts. People by nature are inclined to believe that anyone is saved whose behavior is moral and sincere. But who was more moral and sincere than the Pharisees? Who was more moral and sincere than Saul of Tarsus? The question is not whether a person is moral and sincere, but what is the reason for their morality? The only morality acceptable to God is morality based on a selfless desire to please and glorify God alone. Among sinful humanity, this kind of morality can only come from thankfulness for what God has already accomplished for the sinner in the person of his Son. Did Wesley have this kind of thankfulness, or was his morality based on a need to persevere in the faith? Did he believe and preach that salvation was conditioned on Christ alone, or that it was conditioned on John Wesley? Was he relying on his faith as the basis of his acceptance with God? Was he relying on something other than the merits of the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ to recommend him to God?

Is Faith a Condition for Justification?

These five quotes, above, put forth a very common heresy (though most who proclaim it aren’t usually this bold and forthright about it): that faith is the condition of justification. Can this be? Looking back at our definition of “the Gospel”, we see that it cannot possibly be. Not if the whole of Salvation is “conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts”. Instead, saving faith believes that it was Christ who met all the conditions! This is taught by the Christian Confession of Faith:

Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation. … [Isa 45:24-25; Isa 51:5; Luk 17:10; Joh 1:12-13; Joh 5:24; Joh 6:29; Act 13:39; Rom 3:20-28; Rom 4:1-5; Rom 4:14-25; Rom 5:1; Rom 9:16; Rom 9:30-33; Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:6-12; Gal 5:2-6; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:9; Heb 11:4; Heb 11:7]2

There are no conditions that a sinner can meet in order to by justified. Any other Gospel is anathema (Gal 1:8), even if it does have “a form of godliness” (2 Tim 3:5), as Wesley’s false gospel certainly did.

We must not be distracted by the fact that, both in his sermons and in his hymns, Wesley talked about salvation being a free gift, and that it was accomplished by grace. The problem is not that he didn’t use these phrases; the problem is that when he used them, he didn’t mean what the Bible means by them. Wesley saw human free will as taken away by the Fall, but restored by the Grace of God:

I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, (10:229-31, Predestination Calmly Considered)

We both [Wesley and Fletcher] steadily assert that the will of man is by nature free only to evil. Yet we both believe that every man has a measure of free-will restored to him by grace. (10:392, Remarks On Mr. Hills ‘Review’; Sept. 9, 1772)

Therefore, he could at one moment speak of salvation being entirely by the grace of God, and in the next moment, speak of Man fulfilling conditions for salvation. What he believed all along was that salvation is accomplished by Man fulfilling conditions; and that the grace of God simply allowed Man to meet those conditions. This is a very far cry from what the Bible means by the term “grace”.

Preservation

Next, there is the question of whether one can lose his salvation. Let’s look at what the Confession teaches about the doctrine of Preservation:

When God saves a person, He preserves that person from ever returning to a state of lostness and from ever being punished in hell. [Psa 31:23; Psa 37:24; Psa 37:28; Psa 55:22; Psa 66:9; Psa 121:3-8; Pro 2:7-8; Jer 32:39-40; Joh 6:40; Joh 10:28-29; Rom 8:30-39; Eph 1:13-14; Phi 1:6; 2Th 3:3; 2Ti 1:12; 2Ti 4:18; 1Pe 1:3-5; Jud 1:24]

There are sins that God, in His sovereign preserving grace, keeps His people from committing. Any sin that God says proves lostness is, by definition, a sin that a believer cannot commit, even temporarily. These include believing in a false gospel, confessing belief in a false gospel, and speaking peace to one who brings a false gospel. [Jer 8:11; Mat 7:18; Mat 24:24; Mar 16:16; Luk 6:45; Rom 10:3; Gal 1:8-10; 1Jo 1:8; 1Jo 1:10; 1Jo 2:22-23; 2Jo 1:9-11]3

What you believe about this doctrine reveals much about what you believe the Gospel really is, because if you believe that a person can lose his salvation, it means that you believe that his salvation was originally conditioned on the sinner, rather than on Christ. Let’s look at what Wesley believed about this doctrine:

Clearly, Wesley taught a salvation conditioned on the sinner, rather than conditioned on Jesus Christ alone. The fact that he insisted it could not be accomplished without the grace of God is irrelevant.

A very subtle heresy is addressed in the last sentence of the last quote, above. If salvation cannot be conditioned on any requirement that the sinner can meet, then can salvation be conditioned on something the Holy Spirit enables the sinner to do? Wesley believed the answer was “Yes”, and taught it in no uncertain terms.

This is one of the greatest of Satan’s lies, that Man is enabled to meet conditions for salvation by the work of the Holy Spirit. Notice that this is not an outright denial of the Gospel; it does not claim to have a salvation conditioned on the sinner, but on the work of God. However, the condition is still one that is met by the sinner. Now matter how much theoretical emphasis is placed on the work of God in regeneration, the condition of a sinner’s acceptance with God is still his own faith, rather than the work of Jesus Christ. And, as we saw with the doctrine of Perfectionism, the work of the Holy Spirit is not even to glorify himself, much less the sinner. His work is to glorify Jesus Christ alone.

Salvation is not conditioned on the gracious work of God the Spirit, any more than on the gracious work of God the Father. If salvation is not exclusively conditioned on God the Son, there is no salvation at all.

Ordo Saludis – the Order of Salvation

Having seen that Wesley placed the ultimate condition for salvation entirely in the hands of Man, we must now examine how Wesley viewed the Ordo Saludis, or Order of Salvation. The Ordo Saludis is the order in which the several steps of Salvation occur for every individual. The great importance of the Ordo Saludis will be seen once it is set out systematically.

First, according to Wesley, the person sincerely uses their Free Will to repent.

Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance, I mean conviction of sin producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by “fruits meet for repentance”, forgiving our brother; (Matt. vi. 14,15;) ceasing from evil, doing good; (Luke iii. 3, 4, 9, &c) using the ordinances of God, and in general obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. (Matt. vii. 7; xxv. 29) But these I cannot as yet term good works; because they do not spring from faith and the love of God. …. repentance, or conviction of sin, and fruits meet for repentance, precede that faith whereby we are justified: (8:47 & 51, A Farther Appeal To Men Of Reason And Religion, Dec 18, 1745)

Second, God gives Saving Faith to that person.

Q. 12. What is sincerity? A. Willingness to know and do the whole will of God. …. Q. 14. But can it be conceived that God has any regard to the sincerity of an unbeliever? A. Yes, so much, that, if he persevere therein, God will infallibly give him faith. …. Q. 20. Is not sincerity what St. Paul terms a willing mind, ? (2 Cor. viii. 12) A. Yes: If that word be taken in a general sense. For it is a constant disposition to use all the grace given. (8:288, Minutes of Some Late Conversations, May 13, 1746)

Third, the person exercises Saving Faith, meeting the condition for salvation.

… God now vouchsafes, on one only condition (which himself also enables us to perform) both to remit the punishment due to our sins, to reinstate us in his favour, and to restore our dead souls to spiritual life, as the earnest of life eternal. …. Faith, therefore, is the necessary condition of justification; yea, and the only necessary condition thereof. (5:55 & 62, Sermon 5 Justification By Faith, emph. in orig.)

Fourth, the person becomes elect.

… all who suffer Christ to make them alive are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God,” …. (7:385, Sermon 128 Free Grace)

I believe election means, Secondly, a divine appointment of some men to eternal happiness. But I believe this election to be conditional, as well as the reprobation opposite thereto. I believe the eternal decree concerning both is expressed in those words: “He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.” And this decree, without doubt, God will not change, and man cannot resist. (10:210, Predestination Calmly Considered)

“For whom he did foreknow” as believing, “he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” (10:218, Predestination Calmly Considered)

This Order of Salvation demonstrates exactly how much of salvation in Wesley’s theology was dependent on the work of Man, and how much was dependent on God. Despite Wesley’s insistence that God still receives the glory for salvation even when free will is the deciding factor, let it be noted that at every step of the Ordo Saludis, Wesley saw Man as active, and God as either passive, or supplying the opportunity for Man to take the lead. Thus, not only the critical deciding factor of free will is attributed to Man, but also repentance, the act of saving faith (God gives the ability to exercise Saving Faith, then waits to see whether the sinner will properly use it), and even personal election all stem from actions performed by the sinner.

This, of course, is the fatal consequence of even beginning to place Salvation in the hands of Man. God will have all the glory for salvation, or he will have none. When one begins taking tiny pieces of the Ordo Saludis from God, one finds that all the rest must be taken as well. Logically, salvation is either “Of the Lord” or “Of Man”. It cannot be half-and-half. It cannot even be 99% God and 1% Man. Any attempt at bringing the effort of Man into salvation, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is utterly destructive of the Gospel, and proud rebellion against God. Once again, we see that Wesley’s gospel νexalts Man, and abases God; let it be anathema (Gal 1:6).

The Nature of Faith

Before getting into what Wesley believed about the nature of faith, let’s look at what the Christian Confession of Faith has to say about it:

Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified. No man is justified before God by works. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is diametrically opposed to salvation by works. Scripture rejects the lie that man is able to keep the law of God or even a mere summary of the law as a means of gaining God’s favor, let alone that he is able to obey the law beyond what God requires. [Isa 45:24-25; Isa 51:5; Luk 17:10; Joh 1:12-13; Joh 5:24; Joh 6:29; Act 13:39; Rom 3:20-28; Rom 4:1-5; Rom 4:14-25; Rom 5:1; Rom 9:16; Rom 9:30-33; Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:6-12; Gal 5:2-6; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:9; Heb 11:4; Heb 11:7] 4

This section of the Confession has much to say about the role of faith in salvation, but it does not specifically define the term “Faith”. Let’s look at an important section of Scripture that shows us the nature of faith:

Heb 11: (1) Now faith is [the] essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seen. (2) For by this the elders obtained witness. (3) By faith we understand the ages to have been framed by [the] Word of God, so that the things seen [should ] not come into being out of things that appear. (4) By faith Abel offered a greater sacrifice to God than Cain, by which he obtained witness to be righteous, God testifying over his gifts; and through it, having died, he yet speaks. (5) By faith “Enoch” was translated so as not to see death, and “was not found, because God translated him.” For before his translation, he had obtained witness to have been pleasing to God. (6) But without faith [it is] impossible to please [God]. For it is right [that] the [one] drawing near to God should believe that He is, and [that] He becomes a rewarder to the [ones] seeking Him out.

Although these verses are specifically discussing the nature and effects of true, God-given faith, we can draw a few conclusions about the nature of faith in general. Verse 1 of Hebrews 11 tells us that “faith is [the] essence of things being hoped”. The word which is here translated “essence” is “υποστασισ5, which literally means “support” or “foundation”, but more abstractly means “assurance” or “confidence”.

Verse 1 of Hebrews 11 also tells us that “faith is … the evidence of things not having been seen.” The word which is here translated “evidence” is “ελεγκο6, which literally means “conviction”, “proof”, or “evidence”. Taken together, these two words (“υποστασισ” & “ελεγκο”) show us that a vital part of the nature of faith is the conviction, or the assurance, of some proposition, or set of propositions.

This presupposes that the person who has faith has a knowledge of those propositions. So a suggested definition of faith is: knowledge of, and assent to, a proposition, or set of propositions. 

Verse 6 of Hebrews 11 confirms this definition further. There, we are told that the person who has faith believes in God’s existence and goodness. The idea here is that God has revealed to us a set of propositions about himself, his son, and his gospel. Those who have faith are convinced, or assured, that these facts are true, on the basis that it is God who has revealed them. Faith, therefore, reveals a basic trust and confidence in the honesty and goodness of God. Paul elaborates on this point extensively in chapter 4 of Romans:

Rom 4: (3) For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” (4) Now [to one] working, the reward is not counted according to grace, but according to debt. (5) But to the [one] not working, but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. … (13) For the promise [was] not through Law to Abraham, or to his seed, [for] him to be the heir of the world, but through a righteousness of faith. … (16) On account of this, [it is] of faith, that [it be] according to grace, for the promise to be certain to all the seed, not to that of the Law only, but also to that of [the] faith of Abraham, who is father of us all, (17) according as it has been written, “I have appointed you a father of many nations;” before God, whom he believed, the [One] making the dead live, and calling the things that are not as [if] they were. (18) [He] against hope believed in hope, for him to become a father of many nations, according to what has been said, “So shall your seed be.” (19) And being about a hundred years [old], not weakening in faith, he did not consider his body to have died already, nor yet the death of Sarah’s womb, (20) and did not stagger by unbelief at the promise of God, but was empowered by faith, giving glory to God, (21) and being fully persuaded that what He has promised, He is also able to do. (22) Because of this, “it was also counted to him for righteousness.”

Abraham knew of God’s promise, as well as God’s power and willingness to keep his promises (verse 17). Furthermore, Abraham was personally assured, or convinced, that God would keep his promise, no matter what the outward circumstances appeared to be (verse 21). Abraham’s faith, then, consisted of knowledge and assurance, and these two components form the basis of faith..

What, then, is the proposition (or propositions) that faith has knowledge and assurance of? What is the object of true faith?

Eph 1: (13) in whom also you, hearing the Word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also believing you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Here, Paul tells us that those who have faith7, and are therefore “sealed with the Holy Spirit”, believe the “Word of Truth”, which he also describes as “the gospel of your salvation”. This then is the difference between true faith, and any false faith: true, godly faith believes the doctrines of the Gospel, while a false faith does not.

In his very first printed sermon, however, Wesley put forth a very different definition of true faith:

What faith is it then through which we are saved? … it is not barely a speculative, rational thing, a cold, lifeless assent, a train of ideas in the head; but also a disposition of the heart. (5:9, Sermon 1, Salvation by Faith)

There are a number of glaring errors here. First, there is the suggestion that a propositional faith is “cold” and “lifeless”. We have already seen that the faith of Abraham was propositional, and that it was anything but cold or lifeless.

Next is the dichotomy Wesley imagines to exist between the head and heart. This dichotomy is a modern, romantic invention, not based on Scripture. In Scripture the heart is the organ that thinks (Gen 6:5, Pro 23:7, Isa 10:7, Php 1:7), plans (Job 17:11, Pro 16:9, Heb 4:12), and meditates (Psa 119:11, Pro 4:4, Isa 33:18, Luk 2:51). Therefore, Scripture verses that show us the role of the “heart” in salvation are not talking about the role of feelings and emotions, but the role of thoughts and doctrines:

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: (9) Because if you confess [the] Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from [the] dead, you will be saved. (10) For with [the] heart [one] believes unto righteousness, and with [the] mouth [one] confesses unto salvation.

2Co 3: (15) But until today, when Moses is being read, a veil lies on their heart.

Heb 13: (9) Do not be carried away by various and strange doctrine; for [it is] good [that] the heart be confirmed by grace, not by food, in which those walking [in them] were not profited.

A “disposition of the heart”, if taken in a biblical sense, would mean “thoughts”, “ideas”, and “doctrines”, not exactly what Wesley was trying to put forth.

Lastly is the assertion that saving faith believes in something more than propositions. That the Gospel consists entirely of propositions has already been shown. A “proposition-less” Gospel simply cannot exist, because the very definition of faith is “knowledge of, and assent to, a proposition”. Therefore, all beliefs about the Gospel (including Wesley’s belief in Free Will, Perfection, and Universal Atonement, just to name a few) are propositional by their very nature, because it is impossible to have faith in anything besides a proposition. Notice that in attempting to add something to the definition of faith beyond “mere” propositions, Wesley has utterly failed to define what that certain something is. He simply calls it “a disposition of the heart”. But precisely what is this disposition? Without a measurable definition of this “disposition”, how will I know if I possess it? Or, for that matter, if anyone else possesses it?

Here, Wesley attempts to provide an answer to the question “What is this disposition of the heart?” (as opposed to a “train of ideas in the head”):

But what is the faith which is properly saving; which brings eternal salvation to all those that keep it to the end? It is such a divine conviction of God, and the things of God, as, even in its infant state, enables every one that possesses it to “fear God and work righteousness.” And, whosoever, in every nation, believes thus far, the Apostle declares, is “accepted of him.” He actually is, at that very moment, in a state of acceptance. (7:198-9, Sermon 106, Saving Faith)

This quote seems to define the “disposition of the heart” that Wesley believed was an integral part of true faith. But in fact it does nothing of the sort. After all, the Pharisees seemed to have a profound “fear of God” and impeccable “works of righteousness”, yet we know that they did not believe the Gospel, because they did not believe in the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity.

Wesley was so eager to denigrate the necessity of propositions and doctrines for the Gospel, that he was willing to teach that the devils believe every word of the Bible:

These articles of our faith [Christ's incarnation, substitutionary death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, second coming, judgment] the devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. … Christian faith is, not only to believe that holy Scripture and the Articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence, … (5:22-3, Sermon 2 The Almost Christian)

For the devil believes, and cannot but believe, all that is written both in the Old and New Testament to be true. (6:395, Sermon 74 Of The Church)

10. Only beware thou do not deceive thy own soul with regard to the nature of this faith. It is not, as some have fondly conceived, a bare assent to the truth of the Bible, of the articles of our creed, or of all that is contained in the Old and New Testament. The devils believe this, as well as I or thou! And yet they are devils still. But it is, over and above this, a sure trust in the mercy of God, through Christ Jesus. It is a confidence in a pardoning God. It is a divine evidence or conviction that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their” former “trespasses;” and, in particular, that the Son of God hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that I, even I, am now reconciled to God by the blood of the cross. (5:84-85, Sermon 7, The Way To The Kingdom)

The Bible does not say very much about what the devils believe, so the theory that they believe “all that is written in the Old and New Testament” is speculation. The book of James says, in chapter two, that the devils believe in the existence of God. This would make them monotheists, perhaps even Trinitarians, but it is quite a stretch from saying that the devils believe in a Trinitarian formula, to saying that they believe in Christ’s substitutionary death, let alone every word of the Bible. Even granting that the devils probably believe most of what is written in the Bible, I find it hard to believe that they can really believe in all of the Bible, including the description of the Devil’s final defeat, imprisonment, and eternal damnation, from Revelation, chapter twenty.

No matter what the devils believe about the contents of the Bible, the fact remains that the Gospel does not benefit them in any way. In order to atone for the sins of his people, Jesus had to be born in their “likeness”. He was not born in the likeness of the fallen angels, and so could not atone for their sin. Therefore, no matter what propositions the devils believe, the Gospel will be of no use to them. The fact that they believe in any proposition from the Bible cannot be used as an argument against the view that the Gospel consists of propositions.

Ironically, Wesley went on to make a couple of statements about the nature of saving faith that actually demonstrate the propositional nature of faith:

Faith in general is a divine, supernatural “ελεγκοs”8evidence or conviction, “of things not seen,” not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine evidence or conviction that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself;” but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me. Repentance, indeed, God had given him before; but that repentance was neither more nor less than a deep sense of the want of all good, and the presence of all evil. (5:60-61, Sermon 5 Justification By Faith; emph. in orig.)

8. The gospel, (that is, good tidings, good news for guilty, helpless sinners,) in the largest sense of the word, means, the whole revelation made to men by Jesus Christ; and sometimes the whole account of what our Lord did and suffered while he tabernacled among men. The substance of all is, “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners;” or, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end we might not perish, but have everlasting life;” or, “He was bruised for our transgressions, he was wounded for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

9. Believe this, and the kingdom of God is thine. By faith thou attainest the promise. “He pardoneth and absolveth all that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel.” As soon as ever God hath spoken to thy heart, “Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee,” his kingdom comes: Thou hast “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (5:85, Sermon 7, The Way To The Kingdom, emph. in orig.)

We have already examined the Bible’s use of the word “ελεγκο”, above. Here, Wesley not only teaches that true faith does indeed consist of “ελεγκο”, or “conviction”, “proof”, or “evidence” of the truth of the Gospel, but even supplies us with a proposition that saving faith believes. Admittedly, that proposition is “Universal Atonement”, but even so, it is a proposition, that “cold, lifeless assent”, that “train of ideas in the head” that he so dreaded. In a backhanded way, this quote actually confirms the view that the Gospel consists of propositions.

Nevertheless, Wesley was not prepared to consistently teach that the gospel is propositional. For Wesley, the object of saving faith did not have to be clearly understood:

I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart, rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient, love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. (7:354, Sermon 125 On Living Without God)

Here, Wesley asserts that God respects the “goodness of the heart”, even though Psalm 16:2, Jeremiah 17:9, and Romans 3:10-18 all teach that there is no goodness at all in the heart of man. Obviously, this relates back to Wesley’s deficient view of sin, discussed in a previous chapter. But it is also relevant for professing Christians today. It is uncanny how close Wesley’s view of faith was to that of most twenty-first century Protestants. To them, faith is just some sort of mystical, undefinable … essence. No one really knows what faith is, no one really wants to define it. The only thing anyone can agree on is that faith is definitely not merely belief in true doctrines and propositions.

We have already seen, in the first chapter, that Wesley looked for direction from God apart from the Bible. Now Wesley is not only claiming that instruction from God, but even true faith can come through dreams and visions.

Q. 16. Do we not discourage visions and dreams too much, …? A. We do not intend to do this. …. And we cannot deny that saving faith is often given in dreams or visions of the night; (8:284, Minutes of Some Late Conversations, June 25, 1744)

Of course, this makes a certain amount of sense if a “disposition of the heart” is more important than doctrine, as Wesley believed. When the content of faith is not doctrines or propositions, then the medium of the message can take many forms other than the preaching of the Gospel, contrary to Romans 10:14 and Ephesians 1:13.

By denying the necessity of doctrine and propositions for the Gospel, Wesley has seriously broadened the very definition of faith, far beyond the biblical teaching. By thus broadening the definition of faith, Wesley has rendered impossible, not only a judgment of one’s own state before God, but in fact all judgments of saved and lost.

Judging Saved and Lost

Not all readers will agree that it is even necessary to judge professing Christians saved and lost, to pass a judgment on their regeneration, and standing before God. The Christian Confession of Faith has much to say on this issue:

God requires of His people that they love and fellowship with each other. Love of the brothers in Jesus Christ is an inevitable fruit of salvation. [Psa 101:6; Psa 133:1; Joh 13:34-35; Joh 17:20-21; Gal 6:10; Phi 1:27; Phi 2:2-4; Phi 3:16; 1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 2:9-11; 1Jo 3:11; 1Jo 3:14-16; 1Jo 3:23; 1Jo 4:7; 1Jo 4:11; 1Jo 4:20-21; 1Jo 5:1]9

The Confession begins its discussion of judging saved and lost by first examining the need for a Christian to fellowship with, and identify himself publicly with, other believers. Contrary to popular opinion, the need for judging saved and lost does not arise from any mean-spiritedness, arrogance, or self-righteousness, but from a need for fellowship with other Christians.

One of the main proofs that believers love their brothers in Jesus Christ is that they do not speak peace to their brothers’ enemies. They obey God’s command to separate themselves from the world and false Christians. [Exo 34:15-16; Deu 13:1-3; Psa 1:1; Psa 26:4-5; Psa 101:3-8; Pro 4:14-15; Pro 9:6; Joh 15:19; Rom 16:17-18; 1Co 5:11; 1Co 10:21; 2Co 6:14-18; Eph 5:7-12; 1Ti 6:3-5; 2Ti 3:5; 1Jo 2:15-16; 2Jo 1:10-11; Rev 18:4]10

Continuing with the theme of Christian fellowship, the Confession goes on to explain how genuine Christian fellowship involves more than mere identification with fellow Christians. It also includes joining with them in spiritual warfare against a common enemy.

For these reasons, as well as to witness the gospel to the lost, it is necessary for believers to make judgments concerning who is unregenerate (including who are false Christians) and who is regenerate. The standard by which believers are to make these judgments is whether or not the person being considered believes the gospel. [Isa 8:20; Isa 45:20; Mat 7:15-20; Mar 16:16; Luk 6:43-45; Joh 7:24; Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 5:11-12; Gal 1:8-9; 1Jo 4:1; 1Jo 4:6; 2Jo 1:9]11

Here, the Confession gives us the absolute standard by which judgments of saved and lost must be made: the Gospel. When a person believes the Gospel, they are saved; when they do not believe the Gospel, they are lost. It is as plain, simple, and clear cut as that. If Christians could not make these kinds of judgments, then they could neither know whom to fellowship with, nor whom to witness to. As these actions are both commanded for Christians, it is absolutely necessary for Christians to make judgments of saved and lost.

Some people may show by their lawless way of life that they do not believe the gospel, but no one can demonstrate by his law-keeping that he believes the gospel; for there are many whose lives appear to conform to the law of God who are yet unregenerate. Therefore, let no man be judged by his reputation, good works, sufferings, appearance, or any other standard but the gospel. [1Sa 16:7; Mat 7:21-23; Mat 23:25-28; Mar 16:16; Luk 18:11-12; Rom 1:21-32; Rom 2:1-2; Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 6:9-10; 2Co 11:13-15; Gal 1:8-9; Gal 6:14-16; 2Th 2:12]12

This section of the Confession refutes the notion that a person should automatically be judged saved, or even just given the benefit of the doubt, because they are moral and sincere. The absolute standard for judging saved and lost is the Gospel, not morality.

Those who refuse to judge by this standard alone, preferring instead to judge by reputation, appearance, religious zeal and dedication, or a false gospel, show that they place no value on the gospel and thus show themselves to be unregenerate. All who consider at least some believers in a false gospel (e.g., believers in universal atonement) to be their brothers in Jesus Christ are unregenerate. [Deu 29:19; Pro 17:15; Isa 5:20; Jer 8:10-12; 1Co 13:6; 1Th 5:3; 2Jo 1:11]13

Finally, the Confession shows us the unregenerate nature of those who refuse to judge by the standard of the Gospel alone, and wish to substitute some other standard. If they do not recognize the supreme importance of Gospel doctrine, it can only be because they do not themselves believe the doctrine. And those who do not believe in the doctrines of the Gospel are themselves unregenerate.

Peace! Peace!” Where There Is No Peace

Rejecting the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of his people, Wesley was free to speak peace to all sorts of people who couldn’t otherwise be considered brethren in Christ. Reading his works, one is tempted to cry out (contrary to the apostles in Matthew 19:25) “Who then can be lost?” This, of course, is the reason he was able to preach to thousands and thousands of people during his lifetime. He was willing to tell them that their sincerity was pleasing to God, their free will was what made them to differ, and God loved everyone equally — effectively removing the offense of the Cross. Modern Calvinists have taken this lesson to heart: If you want big churches, with lots of ornaments, lots of members, and lots of income, just speak peace to as many as you can; just remove the offense of the Cross. Don’t tell them that “all our righteousnesses [are] as a menstruous cloth.” (Isa 64:6) Don’t tell them that salvation is not for the sake of Man, but for the glory of God (Isa 48:11, Rom 3:4). Don’t tell them that all who are saved understand and confess the need for the righteousness of Christ (John 16:8, Rom 10:3, 1 John 2:23). After all, God loves them all alike, and would never want us to do anything to offend them in any way (2 Cor 2:15-16). Just set aside all doctrinal distinctives, ridicule such distinctives as unimportant, and embrace all men, without ever questioning their sincerity, let alone their salvation. Never mind their doctrine; judge them by their experience.

Men may differ from us in their opinions, as well as their expressions, and nevertheless be partakers with us of the same precious faith. It is possible they may not have a distinct apprehension of the very blessing which they enjoy: Their ideas may not be so clear, and yet their experience may be as sound, as ours. (5:238, Sermon 20 The Lord Our Righteousness, emph. mine)

It is well known that he [Mr. Law] absolutely and zealously denied the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as zealously as Robert Barclay, who scruples not to say, “Imputed righteousness! — imputed nonsense!” The body of the people known by the name of Quakers espouse the same sentiment. Nay, the generality of those who profess themselves members of the Church of England are either totally ignorant of the matter, and know nothing about imputed righteousness, or deny this and justification by faith together as destructive of good works. To these we may add a considerable number of the people vulgarly styled Anabaptists, together with thousands of Presbyterians and Independents, lately enlightened by the writings of Dr. Taylor. On the last, I am not called to pass any sentence: I leave them to Him that made them.

But will any one dare to affirm that all Mystics, (such as Mr Law in particular) all Quakers, all Presbyterians or Independents, and members of the Church of England who are not clear in their opinions or expressions, are void of all Christian experience? — that, consequently, they are all in a state of damnation “without hope, without God in the world?” However confused their ideas may be, however improper their language, may there not be many of them whose heart is right toward God, and who effectually know “the Lord our righteousness”? (5:243, Sermon 20 The Lord Our Righteousness, emph. mine)

Wesley’s amazing ability to speak peace to almost anyone, gives us a good idea of what he thought to be most important in life: unity. To this, the Gospel, and the glory of God were secondary. Never mind that someone believed things that were glaringly contrary to biblical teaching, never mind that they believed things that exalted Man and abased God, the all-important thing is unity, so avoid offending them at all costs. This, of course, makes it a critical necessity to judge people by their experiences rather than doctrine. Doctrine divides, and destroys the all-important unity between professing Protestants.

But then, why stop there? Why stop at speaking peace to unsaved Protestants?

The human righteousness of Christ, at least the imputation of it, as the whole and sole meritorious cause of the justification of a sinner before God, is likewise denied by the members of the Church of Rome; by all of them who are true to the principles of their own Church. But undoubtedly there are many among them whose experience goes beyond their principles; who, though they are far from expressing themselves justly, yet feel what they know not how to express. Yea, although their conceptions of this great truth be as crude as their expressions, yet with their hearts they believe: They rest on Christ alone, both unto present and eternal salvation. (5:242, Sermon 20 The Lord Our Righteousness, emph. mine)

Take a moment to think about what Wesley is saying. Members of the Church of Rome formally deny that they are saved by faith alone, yet they really are saved by faith alone, because they have such wonderful experiences. Let every Moderate Calvinist who denies the salvation of Roman Catholics, but defends the salvation of Wesley take careful notice: the very same argument used to defend Wesley is here used by Wesley himself to defend Roman Catholics! This is where your defense of a false gospel takes you! It is inevitable, because subjecting doctrine to experience is the very reverse of Scriptural teaching. (And if this applies to Catholics, much more so to professing Protestants.)

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, [it is] because there is no dawn to them!

Rom 10:10 For with [the] heart [one] believes unto righteousness, and with [the] mouth [one] confesses unto salvation.

2 Jn 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.

This appeal to experience as taking precedence over doctrine is entirely unbiblical, and yet it is precisely the argument used by many Calvinists to defend the salvation of John Wesley himself. We get told, “Look at his good works, his beautiful hymns, his zeal, etc. etc. etc.” ad nauseam. “After all, Arminians are Calvinists when they’re on their knees!”; which is really to say, “Sure, he said he didn’t believe in the Absolute Sovereignty of God in salvation, but we know what he really meant!” But, unless it can be proven otherwise, it would be best if we simply assume that Wesley actually meant what he actually said. Scripture requires us to judge saved and lost, not by experiences, but by doctrine, specifically, the doctrine of the Gospel (Gal 1:8, 6:14). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate Wesley’s works, hymns, etc. by his doctrine, and not vice versa. Anything else is exalting our experiences over the authority of the Word of God.

We have already seen that Wesley accepted many Roman Catholic principles, including free will and the use of idols for teaching purposes. But he went much farther than this. In 1749, Wesley wrote A Letter To A Roman Catholic, which is a virtual introduction to the Catholics And Evangelicals Together document: the same absence of the critical word alone, the same emphasis on all the immorality that floods the world, the same emphasis on what we have in common, the same studied avoiding of the real issues that divide us.

Now, can nothing be done, even allowing us on both sides to retain our own opinions, for the softening our hearts towards each other, the giving a check to this flood of unkindness, and restoring at least some small degree of love among our neighbors and countrymen? …. I think you deserve the tenderest regard I can show, were it only because the same God hath raised you and me from the dust of the earth, and has made us both capable of loving and enjoying him to eternity; were it only because the Son of God has bought you and me with his own blood. How much more if you are a person fearing God, (as without question many of you are,) and studying to have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards man? …. I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. …. I say not a word to you about your opinions or outward manner of worship. …. Use whatever outward observances you please, but put your whole trust in him; but honor his holy name and his word, and serve him truly all the days of your life. …. Does your tender love to all men not only the good, but also the evil and unthankful, approve you the child of your Father which is in heaven? …. This and this alone14, is the old religion. Are we not thus far agreed? Let us thank God for this, and receive it as a fresh token of his love. But if God still loveth us, we ought also to love one another. We ought, without this endless jangling about opinions, to provoke one another to love and to good works. Let the points wherein we differ stand aside; here are enough wherein we agree, enough to be the ground of every Christian temper, and of every Christian action. O brethren, let us not still fall out by the way! I hope to see you in heaven. …. O let you and I (whatever others do) press on to the prize of our high calling! that being justified by faith, we may have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; (10:80-86, A Letter To A Roman Catholic, Dublin, July 18, 1749)

Let no one be surprised at Wesley’s unquestioning acceptance of Roman Catholics as his brothers in Christ. Despite Wesley’s protests that most, if not all, Papists were predestinarians (14:280-1), the truth is that the Roman Catholic Church formally teaches the doctrines of free will and universal atonement, the cornerstone and capstone of Wesley’s theology. When you have these two things in common, the rest follows naturally. Modern Moderate Calvinists should not be wringing their hands in anguish, wondering how Wesley could do such a thing, but rather, they should be asking themselves the questions, what does this say about Wesley? What does this say about Arminianism, in general? Overtures to Roman Catholics are not something dreamed up by the present generation of Evangelical Arminians. It is the natural tendency of Arminianism, because both systems share the same basic presuppositions, and come to similar conclusions. Both begin with the Free Will of Man (rather than the glory of God), and both end with a salvation conditioned on fallen Man (rather than on Christ alone). Both have Man as the Alpha, and Man as the Omega of Salvation. Both are therefore anti-Christian, and both are Satanic.

Why then do so many ersatz-Calvinists find such an attraction to Arminianism? Why do they steadfastly, and willingly, refuse to see that Arminianism is the natural ally of Roman Catholicism? And, what is worse, it is a natural ally to Roman Catholicism that exists right within the “Protestant” camp. It is the “Achan” who lives next door, smiles to them at church, perhaps lives right within their own house. But unless they deal with it as the deadly heresy that it is, it will continue to be an “Achan”, and they should stop acting so surprised that Arminians continue to make overtures to Roman Catholics. They saw it coming and intentionally looked the other way.

Now one might suppose that, having spoken peace to Roman Catholics, Wesley would not be prepared to speak peace to those who made no formal profession of Christianity. But in fact, he was prepared to do just that:

… nor do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation. It is far better to leave them to Him that made them, and who is ‘the Father of the Spirits of all flesh;” who is the God of the Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he hath made. (7:353, Sermon 125 On Living Without God)

So when Paustoobee, an Indian Chief, of the Chickasaw nation in North America was asked. “Why do you think the Beloved Ones (so they term God) take care of you?” …. (6:313, Sermon 67 On Divine Providence, emph. in orig)

And so we may say, Is he the God of the Christians, and not of the Mahometans and Heathens? Yea, doubtless of the Mahometans and Heathens also. His love is not confined: “The Lord is loving unto every man, and his mercy is over all his works.” (6:319, Sermon 67 On Divine Providence)

It should by no means surprise us that Wesley was able to speak peace even to “Mahometans and Heathens”. After all, according to Wesley, God’s “love is not confined:” he loves everyone in the world equally, and wishes that everyone in the world would believe in him. He really wants to save everyone, and now that he’s taken care of all that complex theological stuff, exactly how he does so is unimportant! This is the devastating effect that free will and universal atonement have on one’s theology. God’s glory in the Gospel is forced to take a back seat to Man’s need to be saved.

In view of this, we can only wonder why so many Calvinists constantly bemoan the idea that Predestination destroys any zeal for evangelism. We are told that there is a need for balance; and this so-called “balance” usually takes the form of universal aspects of the atonement. But the truth is actually the reverse: the true basis of evangelism is really predestination, and the true enemy of evangelism is universal atonement! The predestinarian has an assurance that God will sovereignly call all those for whom Christ died (Jn 6:39, Rom 8:29); he will override their natural hatred of Christ and the Gospel, by the medium of preaching (Jn 6:44, 1 Cor 1:21). The Arminian has no such assurance. But it really doesn’t matter since people don’t have any hatred for Christ and his Gospel. And since God will accept the “sincerity” of even Moslems and heathens, why bother sending and supporting missionaries (beyond bringing Western Civilization to the poor, backward heathen) ?

Peace! Peace!” – Well, Except for Those Predestinarians!

We have seen that Wesley believed that experience and sincerity were the primary indicators to determine whether a person was saved or lost. As a result, he was willing to speak peace to those Calvinists, such as George Whitefield, who believed the same and were willing to water down the distinctive points of their doctrine, or at least keep quiet about them. He even preached Whitefield’s funeral sermon, at Whitefield’s request. However, he could be downright hostile towards others who would not reciprocate in compromising and peace-speaking:

I dare not insist upon any one’s using the word Trinity, or Person. I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better: But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? 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 Servetus15 in a letter to himself. (6:201, Sermon 55 On The Trinity, May 8, 1775)

When the Reformation began, what mountainous offenses lay in the way of even the sincere members of the Church of Rome! They saw such failings in those great men, Luther and Calvin! Their vehement tenaciousness of their own opinions; their bitterness toward all who differed from them; their impatience of contradiction, and utter want of forbearance, even with their own brethren. (8:242, A Farther Appeal To Men Of Reason And Religion Dec 18, 1745)

… St Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him, as George Fox himself.) …. “But St. Augustine says:” — When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.” (6:328-9, Sermon 68 The Wisdom of God’s Counsels, emph. in orig.)

Has the truth (so Mr. J. termed what many love to term the doctrine of free grace) a natural tendency to spoil the temper? to inspire pride, haughtiness, superciliousness? to make a man “wiser in his own eyes, than seven men that can render a reason?” Does it naturally turn a man into a cynic, a bear, a Toplady? Does it at once set him free from all the restraints of good nature, decency, and good manners? (10:413-14, Remarks On Mr. Hills ‘Review’;Sept. 9, 1772; emph. in orig.)

“But Bishop Cowper” — I object to him, beside his being a hot, bitter Calvinist, that he is a dull, heavy, shallow writer. (10:442, Remarks On Mr. Hill’s ‘Farrago Double Distilled’; Mar. 14, 1773)

I want to make it clear that in bringing up Wesley’s nastiness toward these men (Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Toplady, and Cowper), I am not necessarily endorsing these men. Let them be judged by the same standard as Wesley: by the Gospel they preached. Nevertheless, they were subjected to this kind of abuse at Wesley’s hands because they either refused to speak peace to him, or to other Free-Willers of their day.

But amazingly, despite the vicious attacks Wesley made upon staunch predestinarians, his constant refrain was for “tolerance”.

But some may say, I have mistaken the way myself, although I take upon me to teach it to others. It is probable many will think this, and it is very possible that I have. But I trust, wherinsoever I have mistaken, my mind is open to conviction. I sincerely desire to be better informed. I say to God and man, “What I know not, teach thou me!” … For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels! (5:5-6, Preface to Sermons; cf. 1Cor 13:6)

Have patience with us, if we are in an error; yea, suffer us to enjoy our error. (6:424, Sermon 76 On Perfection)

To colour our own devilish temper, we pronounce our brethren children of the devil! …. Go and learn that truly catholic love which “is not rash,” or hasty in judging; that love which “thinketh no evil;” which believeth and hopeth all things;” which makes all the allowance for others that we desire others should make for us! Then we shall take knowledge of the grace of God which is in every man, whatever be his opinion or mode of worship; …. Let the time past suffice for strife, envy, contention; for biting and devouring one another. Blessed be God, that ye have not long ago been consumed one of another. From henceforth hold ye the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (6:181, Sermon 53 On The Death Of Mr. Whitefield)

What, if I were to see a Papist, an Arian, a Socinian, casting out devils? If I did, I could not forbid even him, without convicting myself of bigotry. Yea, if it could by supposed that I should see a Jew, a Deist, or a Turk, doing the same, were I to forbid him either directly, or indirectly, I should be no better than a bigot still. O stand clear of this! But be not content with not forbidding any that cast out devils. It is well to go thus far; but do not stop here. If you will avoid all bigotry, go on. In every instance of this kind, whatever the instrument be, acknowledge the finger of God. And not only acknowledge, but rejoice in his work, and praise his name with thanksgiving. (5:491, Sermon 38 A Caution Against Bigotry)

But after the all vicious assaults Wesley made on Augustus Toplady, to name just one, the plea for “tolerance!” rings a little hollow.

Conclusion

Wesley’s Gospel was one that dethroned God, and enthroned Man in his place. It made Man the Alpha and Omega of his own salvation, giving Man the entire power to initiate, continue in, and/or terminate his own salvation. It made Man the centerpiece of salvation, while God waited around hoping against hope that Man would obey him, and persevere long enough to be finally saved. Thus it is that Arminianism fulfills the Devil’s first lie to Man: “You shall be as God.” (Gen 3:5)

1Christian Confession of Faith V.B.1;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

2Christian Confession of Faith V.C.4;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

3Christian Confession of Faith V.D.1-2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

4Christian Confession of Faith V.C.4;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

5Pronounced hu-po-sta-sis, it is entry #5287 in Strong’s Dictionary.

6Pronounced el-eng-ko, it is entry #1651 in Strong’s Dictionary.

7Although the word “faith” is not specifically present in this verse, let it be noted that two verses later, Paul will describe the Ephesians as having “faith in the Lord Jesus”, Eph 1:15.

8Pronounced el-eng-kos, it is entry #1651 in Strong’s Dictionary.

9Christian Confession of Faith V.E.1;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

10Christian Confession of Faith V.E.2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

11Christian Confession of Faith V.E.3;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

12Christian Confession of Faith V.E.4;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

13Christian Confession of Faith V.E.5;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

14This is the only appearance of the word “alone” in the entire Letter.

15I will have a lot more to say about Calvin’s involvement in the Servetus affair in Appendix B.

September 26, 2011

John Wesley vs. the Gospel, pt. 5

Posted in John Wesley tagged , , , , , , , , , , at 9:13 pm by chriswadams

IV. Christology – The Doctrine of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ

Having examined Wesley’s view of Scripture, God, and Man, the next doctrine to be examined is Wesley’s view of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The Person of Christ

Here is how The Christian Confession of Faith summarizes the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ:

There is only one man among the descendants of Adam born without a sinful nature, and this is Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son incarnate. He was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, contracting no guilt or defilement from Adam. He was totally and completely without sin. [Isa 7:14; 53:9; Mat 1:25; Luk 1:31-35; 2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26-27; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:5]

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]1

These two sections of the Confession teach that Jesus was both God and Man. The first section teaches that Jesus is “God the Son incarnate”, and that he was born of a virgin, and thus did not receive any “guilt or defilement from Adam”. The second section describes the relationship of his two natures (“without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation”), and refutes the twin heresies that Jesus was either human, but not divine, or divine, but not human.

Anyone who reads the Bible with any seriousness will immediately recognize the great importance of the doctrine of Christ’s person. 1John 2:22-23 displays the life or death issue of believing in the person of Jesus Christ:

1Jo 2: (22) Who is the liar, except the [one] denying, [saying] that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the [one] denying the Father and the Son. (23) Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The [one] confessing the Son also has the Father.

Anyone who truly believes in the Jesus of the Bible is saved, while anyone who does not is lost. Wesley himself seemed to understand the vital importance of this doctrine:

Not that I can at all believe the ingenious dream of Dr. Watts concerning “the glorious humanity of Christ,” which he supposes to have existed before the world began, …. And I am afraid it was the grand means of turning that great man aside from the faith once delivered to the saints; — that is, if he was turned aside; if that beautiful [sic] soliloquy be genuine which is printed among his Posthumous Works, wherein he so earnestly beseeches the Son of God not to be displeased because he cannot believe him to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. (6:273, Sermon 62 The End Of Christ’s Coming)

Notice that, although he is willing to reserve judgement in case the “soliloquy” is a forgery, Wesley is still able to judge Watts lost if the “soliloquy” was genuine; because in that case, Isaac Watts did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. As far as Wesley was concerned, this fact alone would be enough to judge Isaac Watts lost. And most professing Christians would probably agree with Wesley’s assessment.

But “confessing [the] Son”, as John puts it, involves a lot more than merely confessing that Jesus is both Man and God. It involves believing in the doctrine of his person (both human and divine) and the doctrine of his work of justifying his people on the Cross (Isa 45:24, Jer 9:24, Gal 6:14).

It is exactly at this point that many professing Christians (even those who claim to believe in the Effectual, or Limited, Atonement of Christ) will balk, because it means that those who make a profession of faith in Christ will have to be judged based on their belief of doctrine! And yet this is exactly what the Bible commands in places such as:

Mat 7: (15) But beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside they are plundering wolves. (16) From their fruits you shall know them. Do they gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? (17) So every good tree produces good fruits, but the corrupt tree produces evil fruits. (18) A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree produce good fruits. (19) Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and is thrown into fire. (20) Then surely from their fruits you shall know them.

Joh 7: (24) Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment

1Jo 4: (1) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

Judging a professing Christian according to the doctrine he holds is absolutely essential for judging saved and lost, since it is impossible to believe in a doctrine-less God, a doctrine-less Christ, or a doctrine-less Gospel. Isaac Watts is a perfect example of this; if the so-called “soliloquy” is genuine, Isaac Watts did not believe in the doctrine of the deity of Christ. And Wesley made his judgement of Watts based on this doctrine. It follows then, that when a professing Christian is willing to make judgments of saved and lost based on the doctrine of Christ’s person, but refuses to make judgments of saved and lost based on the doctrine of Christ’s work, that person is not really refusing to make judgments based on doctrine alone, as they often claim. In reality, they are simply making judgments based on selected doctrines; ie. doctrines that they select for themselves, rather than letting themselves be guided by the doctrines that are put forth in Scripture as standards for judgment. And, as we shall see, Scripture puts just as much emphasis on the importance of the effect of Christ’s work as it does on the importance of his divinity.

It must be said that John Wesley was sound in his view of the person of Christ2. He believed that Jesus Christ was both Man and God. Therefore, my judgment of him has nothing to do with his belief in the doctrine of Christ’s person, and everything to do with his view of the doctrine of Christ’s work. What we shall see is that Wesley believed in the doctrine of Universal Atonement (ie. the teaching that the blood of Jesus Christ atones for the sin of all human beings without exception). But before discussing Wesley’s view of the work of Jesus Christ in greater detail, let’s review what the Bible and the Christian Confession of Faith have to say about the work of Christ.

The Work of Christ

The work of Jesus Christ to justify his people is a necessary consequence of the Justice of God. God the Father imputed the sins of his elect people to Jesus Christ, and then poured out the full wrath of his offended Justice upon Christ (2Cor 5:17, 1Pet 3:18). God was therefore just in punishing a man who, in his own character and conduct, was completely innocent (Luk 23:14-15, Heb 7:26, 1Pet 2:22). Furthermore, God imputed the righteousness of Christ to the elect, so that even though they are sinful in their character and conduct, he may bless them justly (Psa 85:10, Rom 5:9, Col 2:13). The righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the blood that symbolizes it, is therefore central to the Gospel message, because according to the Justice of God, the righteousness of Christ demands the salvation of any person to whom it is given (Rom 8:34). If God were to give that righteousness to a person, and then send that person to Hell anyway, he would be unjust in doing so; he would, in effect, be demanding double payment for the same sins. Further, he would also be unjust in requiring that his Son suffer for the sins of a person, and then refusing to give his Son the reward which was promised (Isa 53:12).

The Biblical doctrine of the work of Christ is summarized in the Christian Confession of Faith:

When He became incarnate, Jesus Christ was made subject to the law of God and obliged to obey all its precepts. He did this perfectly, to the minutest detail. [Psalm 40:8; Isa 50:5; Mat 3:15; 2Co 5:21; Gal 4:4; Heb 2:14-15; 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:4-5]

The consummate act of obedience that Jesus Christ paid to the law was in suffering the ultimate penalty for the disobedience of His people that the law demanded. Thus, while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell. This was not for any guilt He had contracted Himself but for the sins of His people. Their guilt was imputed to Him, and He suffered the penalty their sins deserved. His finished work on the cross appeased God’s wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing the salvation of all for whom He died. [Gen 22:13; Exo 12:3-13; Lev 16:21-22; 17:11; Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]3

Let’s look at some of the verses that the Confession refers to, and notice what they have to say about the work of Jesus Christ. In particular pay close attention to what the Bible has to say about what the work of Jesus Christ accomplishes on behalf of all people for whom it was intended:

Exo 12: (13) And the blood shall be a sign to you, on the houses where you [are]. And I will see the blood, and I will pass over you. And the plague shall not be on you to destroy, when I strike in the land of Egypt.

The blood of the lamb, which typifies the blood of Jesus Christ, caused God to pass over the house. The blood was not put on every house in Egypt, but only on the houses of Israelites. And the blood did not fail to cause God to pass over the house; no Israelite had to add his works or decisions to the blood on the doorposts, because the blood alone was sufficient to cause God to pass over the house. Each and every house that had the blood of a lamb on the doorposts was saved from destruction; there were no exceptions.

Now consider how this verse relates to the doctrine of Universal Atonement. If Universal Atonement were true, then the blood of Jesus Christ ought to cause the wrath of God to “pass over” the sins of all human beings without exception! Yet, as even Wesley would admit4, it manifestly does not.

Isa 53: (11) He shall see [the fruit] of the travail of His soul; He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge the righteous One, My Servant, shall justify for many, and He shall bear their iniquities.

The work of Jesus Christ caused many people to be justified. It did not potentiallyjustify a people, if only they would do their part; it actually justified many people, just as Jesus actually bore their sins. Each and every person whose sins were borne by Jesus Christ was justified by his work.

Now consider how this verse relates to the doctrine of Universal Atonement. If Universal Atonement were true, and the work of Jesus Christ were intended for all people without exception, then the work of Jesus Christ ought to have justified all people without exception. But again, as even Wesley would admit, it manifestly does not

Rom 5: (9) Much more then, being justified now by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through Him.

The blood of Jesus Christ justifies his people, and saves them from the wrath of God. Each and every person who is justified by the blood of Christ is saved from the wrath of God. And again, if Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended to justify every person without exception, then every person without exception would be “saved from the wrath” of God. Yet they are not.

2Co 5: (18) And all things [are] from God, the [One] having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and having given to us the ministry of reconciliation, (19) as, that God was in Christ reconciling [the] world to Himself, not charging their deviations to them, and having put the Word of reconciliation in us.

Jesus Christ reconciles his people to God. Each and every person for whom the blood of Christ was poured out, is reconciled to God, and does not have their deviations charged to them. If Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended to justify every person without exception, then every person without exception would be “reconciled to God”. Yet they are not.

Gal 1: (4) who gave Himself for our sins, so that He might deliver us out of the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

All for whom Jesus Christ gave himself for their sins are delivered from the present evil age. And if Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended for every person without exception, then every person without exception would be “delivered out of the present evil age”. Yet they are not.

Heb 5: (9) and having been perfected, He came to be [the] Author of eternal salvation to all the [ones] obeying Him,

All for whom Jesus Christ died receive eternal salvation. And again, if Universal Atonement were true, and the blood of Jesus Christ were intended for every person without exception, then every person without exception would “receive eternal salvation”. Yet they do not.

This selection of verses is only a small fraction of the verses which show the effectual benefits of the blood of Jesus Christ towards all for whom his blood was intended. Every one of those verses gives the lie to the doctrine of Universal Atonement, because those benefits are plainly intended for all people for whom Christ died, yet they plainly do not extend to all people without exception.

This goes back to what the work of Christ shows us about the justice of God revealed in the Gospel: the righteousness of Christ demands the salvation of all for whom Christ died (Rom 8:34). Any doctrine that denies this basic truth is a denial of the Gospel.

Wesley’s Doctrine of the Work of Christ

So exactly what did Wesley believe about the work of Jesus Christ? What did he believe about the blood and righteousness of Christ? Did his views glorify or deny the justice of God? Did he believe it secures full remission of sins, fellowship with God, and final glory in Heaven, for all whom Christ represented? Or did he consider it worthless, securing only a conditional pardon for those who exercise their Free Will?

Wesley obviously believed that the Grace of God was “bought for every child of man,” but not given to every child of Man, as the justice of God would require. He believed that Jesus Christ suffered the unmitigated fury of God against the sins of all men without exception, but that God refuses to accept this suffering on behalf of millions of people for whom it was intended. He believed that Jesus Christ suffered the just penalty that God’s law and justice demanded for the sins of all people without exception, but then God refuses to reward Jesus with the souls of the people he (supposedly) redeemed. Wesley believed that the Grace of God is “actually given to every one that believeth” and withheld from every one that believes not, regardless of the fact that Jesus (supposedly) already purchased the gift of God’s grace on their behalf. Wesley’s blasphemous doctrine of Universal Atonement utterly denies the justice of God revealed in the work of Jesus Christ.

Justification & Imputation

This brings us to the twin doctrines of Justification and Imputation. The Christian Confession of Faith describes imputation in this way:

The perfect righteousness that Jesus Christ established is imputed to every one of God’s people in time. Because of this imputed righteousness, they are declared blameless before God and reconciled to God. Christ’s righteousness imputed demands God’s favor and fellowship toward them. [Job 29:14; Psa 32:2; 85:10-11; Isa 53:11; 61:10; Jer 23:5-6; Rom 3:21-22; 4:6-8; 5:9-11,17-19; 8:1,31-39; 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:18-21; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:6-7]5

Imputation is a legal term, meaning “to charge to the account of another”. It is a legal concept, denoting the “counting” or “attributing” of something to a person. This concept can be seen in the following verses:

Mar 15: (28) And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was numbered with [the] lawless.”

Rom 8: (36) Even as it has been written, “For Your sake we are killed all the day; we are counted as sheep of slaughter.”

Mark 15:28 says that Jesus Christ was “numbered” or “counted” with transgressors. While Jesus was never a transgressor himself (1Pe 2:22), he was legally “numbered” or “counted” with transgressors in the light of God’s law and justice. Romans 8:36 says that Christians are “numbered” or “counted” as sheep for the slaughter. While Christians are the people that God loves and cherishes, they do not hold their own lives as more important than the glory of God, and are willing to “count” themselves as sheep to be slaughtered. This is what it means to “impute” or “attribute” or “charge to the account of” a person.

Similarly, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the account of his people is shown in the following verses:

Psa 32: (2) Blessed [is] the man to whom Jehovah does not charge iniquity, and in whose spirit there [is] no guile.

Rom 4: (6) Even as also David says of the blessedness of the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

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

The perfect righteousness which Jesus Christ established on the cross is “imputed”, or “charged to the account of” every single believer. It is because of this righteousness that God “does not charge iniquity”, and “counts righteousness apart from works”. It is because of this righteousness that Christians “become [the] righteousness of God in Him”.

We have already seen that God is so holy that he cannot have fellowship with anyone who has the slightest taint of sin; therefore sinful human beings can only enjoy fellowship with God if righteousness is charged, or imputed, to their account by someone else. That righteousness can only be established by someone who is himself completely without sin. The only human being who could possibly establish such a righteousness is Jesus Christ. The imputation of his perfect righteousness is effectual to secure the favor and fellowship of God, for all to whom it is given. This is taught in the Christian Confessionof Faith:

At the same time a sinner is regenerated, he is adopted into God’s family and set apart from the world. He is counted to be as holy and acceptable before God as Jesus Christ Himself, is made to be at peace with God, and enters into fellowship with God based on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. [Job 29:14; Psa 85:8; Isa 26:3; Isa 32:17; Isa 61:10; Joh 1:12; Joh 17:21-23; Rom 3:22; Rom 4:6-8; Rom 5:1-2; Rom 5:19; Rom 8:14-17; Rom 8:33-39; 1Co 1:30; 1Co 6:11; 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:26; Gal 4:5-7; Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:14-19; Eph 3:11-12; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:20-22; 2Th 2:13; Tit 3:7; Heb 2:10-11; 1Jo 1:3; 1Jo 3:1; Rev 21:7]6

Just as the righteousness of God demands that he show wrath and judgment towards those who have sin charged to their account, so also his righteousness demands that he show favor and fellowship towards those who have righteousness charged to their account. Once the righteousness of Jesus Christ is charged to the account of a person, those sins can never again bring him under the wrath and condemnation of God. The justice of God demands that that person cannot be punished for those sins, because Jesus Christ has already been punished in that person’s place, and satisfied the requirements of the justice of God on the sinner’s behalf. This imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer is therefore the effectual means of the justification of a believer. It is this imputation, and subsequent justification, which establishes peace and fellowship between the believer and God, because the believer is cleared from the sin that is charged to his account by the law of God.

But even this imputation could not happen without a second imputation, the imputation of the sins of the believer to the account of Jesus Christ. Although Jesus was completely sinless in his own character and conduct, he was, in the eyes of God’s law and justice, charged with the guilt and defilement of the sins of his people. It was for this reason that the only man who was ever truly and completely innocent in his own character and conduct, could suffer the just wrath and fury of God, and die the death of a criminal. God’s righteousness demands that no innocent person should suffer the just penalty which sin deserves. Yet Jesus suffered the penalty which sin deserves, and died upon the cross, not for his own sins, but for the sins of his people which were charged to his account. The only way in which the suffering of Jesus Christ could be consistent with the justice of God is if the sins of his people were imputed to him. This is taught in the Christian Confessionof Faith:

 The consummate act of obedience that Jesus Christ paid to the law was in suffering the ultimate penalty for the disobedience of His people that the law demanded. Thus, while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell. This was not for any guilt He had contracted Himself but for the sins of His people. Their guilt was imputed to Him, and He suffered the penalty their sins deserved. His finished work on the cross appeased God’s wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing the salvation of all for whom He died. [Gen 22:13; Exo 12:3-13; Lev 16:21-22; 17:11; Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]7

It is here that we can most vividly understand the justice and righteousness of God. His holiness and righteousness demands that all sin and rebellion against him should be punished to the fullest. God hates sin with the utmost hatred, and will never allow it to go unpunished, even when it is charged to the account of the son whom he loves (Joh 3:35). Jesus suffered in indescribable agony (Mar 15:34) to propitiate the wrath of God against the sins of his people, which were charged to his account.

Wesley’s Doctrine of Imputation& Justification

The doctrines of Imputation and Justification that Wesley preached were very different from the kind which the Bible teaches. But rather than teaching an outright denial of the Scriptural doctrines of Imputation and Justification, Wesley taught that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was given to all human beings, but that the blessing of justification did not necessarily follow from that imputation.


Wesley believed that the righteousness of Christ was imputed to all men without exception, but the blessing of justification would not be given to all men without exception. This, of course, is impossible. If God were to impute the righteousness of Christ to the account of a sinner without justifying that sinner, then he would be unjust himself, and so would cease to be God. The justice of God demands that all who have the righteousness of Christ charged to their account be justified in the sight of God.

Furthermore, it is simply not possible that the righteousness of Christ could be imputed to a person, and atone merely for the sin of Adam, while leaving the actual sins of that person untouched. Either the blood of Christ is effectual to atone for all the guilt of a sinner, or it is powerless to atone for all the guilt of a sinner. It cannot merely atone for part of the guilt that is charged to a sinner’s account. The justice of God demands that all who have the righteousness of Christ charged to their account be justified and declared wholly righteous in the sight of God.

The impossibility of God’s imputing the righteousness of Christ to the account of sinners, and then failing to justify those same sinners can be seen from Wesley’s answer to the question, why do some sinners go to Hell?

How came this rich man to be in hell? It does not appear that he was a wicked man, in the common sense of the word; that he was a drunkard, a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, or that he lived in any known sin. It is probable he was a Pharisee; and as such was, in all the outward parts of religion, blameless. How then did he come into “the place of torment?” If there was no other reason to be assigned, there is a sufficient one implied in those words, (“he that hath ears to hear, let him hear!”) “Thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things;” — the things which thou hadst chosen for thy happiness. Thou hadst set thy affection on things beneath: And thou hadst thy reward: Thou didst receive the portion which thou hadst chosen, and canst have no portion above. ” (6:248-9, Sermon 112 Dives And Lazarus)

9. If then you fear bringing damnation on yourself by this, you fear where no fear is. Fear it not for eating and drinking unworthily; for that, in St. Paul’s sense, ye cannot do. But I will tell you for what you shall fear damnation;– for not eating and drinking at all; for not obeying your Maker and Redeemer; for disobeying his plain command; for thus setting at nought both his mercy and authority. Fear ye this; for hear what his Apostle saith: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.” (James 2:10.) (Sermon 101)

The problem with that answer is that unbelief is a sin; but according to the theory of Universal Atonement, that sin is already paid for, so it shouldn’t be a barrier to justification at all. So Wesley, and every other advocate of Universal Atonement must either admit that all people will eventually go to heaven, or Jesus did not die for the sins of all people without exception.

The imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer is the effectual means of the justification of a believer. Therefore, without the twin doctrines of Imputation and Justification, the Gospel simply would not be good news. It would be no “Gospel” at all. And that is a perfect description of Wesley’s false gospel. It is not good news at all, but the filthy rags of self-righteousness, disguised as Christianity.

The State of Those Who Deny the Effectual Work of Christ

The Christian Confession of Faith goes on to describe the terrible state of those who deny the biblical teaching of the effectual work of Christ:

Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception, including those in hell, deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one boasts and glories in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God. [Psa 25:14; 74:18; 94:4; 139:20; Pro 30:12-13; Isa 28:14-18; 42:8; 48:11; Joh 16:8-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2; 10:3; 16:17-18; 1Co 2:12; 2Co 10:3-6; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:18-19; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2-5; 4:3-4; Heb 10:29; 1Jo 2:22-23; 4:6; 2Jo 9]8

The gospel is not merely the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it were, then the death, burial, and resurrection of any mere man would have sufficed. What makes the death of Jesus Christ so important is not the fact of it, but what was accomplished by it. The death of Jesus Christ secured the salvation of all for whom it was intended. The Atonement atones. It doesn’t just make sinners saveable, it saves. To say that Jesus poured out his life blood for someone who goes to Hell anyway is intolerable blasphemy of the first order. It insinuates that Jesus Christ is powerless in bringing about what he desires. It shamelessly teaches that Jesus endured the torment which the wicked deserve, only to have God refuse to pass over them, even though the blood of the Lamb (supposedly) covers them. Thus, rather than Limited Atonement, it is really Universal Atonement that makes God unjust; he requires the penalty for sin first from the hand of Jesus Christ, then at the sinner’s hand as well. Wesley saw the blood of Jesus Christ as virtually worthless. It only secured the possibility of any sinner being saved. It only made sinners savable. It certainly did not mean the difference between Heaven and Hell. The vast majority of those for whom it was intended eventually go to Hell. It was poured out for all without exception, and was only made effectual by the will of Man. To put it simply, this is blasphemy. And the state of those who deny the effectual work of Christ in saving all those for whom he died is the same as those who deny that Jesus is God in the flesh: they are lost, unregenerate, and without God. If they die in this horrible state, as Wesley apparently did, then their reward will not be eternity in heaven, but in the torments of Hell, along with all the other unrepentant enemies of God.


1Christian Confession of Faith IV.A.1-2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

2See for example, Sermon 77 (Spiritual Worship), Notes on the Old Testament (Isa 7:14, in loc), and Notes on the New Testament (Joh 1:30, Rom 1:3, 1Ti 3:16, Heb 7:26, in loc)

3Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.1-2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

4See the first two quotes from Wesley, below.

5Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.3;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

6Christian Confession of Faith V.C.2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm

7Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.2;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

8Christian Confession of Faith IV.C.6;www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfiv.htm

Next page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.