November 27, 2011

John Wesley vs. the Gospel, pt. 9

Posted in John Wesley tagged Catholic Church, Charismatic Movement, Free Will, Irresistible Grace, Judgement, Methodism, Pentecostal, Pentecostalism, Protestantism, Speaking Peace at 11:54 am by chriswadams

Wesley’s Influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In private correspondence, Robbins has written:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Permalink Leave a Comment