A few months ago I wrote a post entitled “John Wesley–heretic or hero?” which I also posted on my website. In that post, which got a lot of attention, I pointed out that Wesley believed in baptismal regeneration. I also asserted that since John and Charles rejected the believer’s eternal security because of their Arminianism, they could call adults who had allegedly been regenerated through infant “baptism” in Anglicanism in infancy to conversion because, if these “baptized” people lived wickedly, they had evidently lost their salvation. I did not provide a specific quote from Wesley, at the time in that previous post, to back up this assertion. However, it was indeed his teaching. Here is some evidence:
[That the] privileges . . . [of] being born again . . . being
the son or a child of God, [and] having the Spirit of adoption . . . are ordinarily
annexed to baptism (which is thence termed by our Lord [as] . . . being “born
of water and of the Spirit”) we know[.] . . . The question is not, what you was
[sic; also in the following] made in
baptism, but, What are you now? . . . I ask not, whether you was born of water
and of the Spirit; but are you now the temple of the Holy Ghost which dwelleth
in you? I allow you was “circumcised with the circumcision of Christ;” (As St.
Paul emphatically terms baptism;) but does the Spirit of Christ and of glory
now rest upon you? Else “your circumcision is become uncircumcision.” . . . Say
not then in your heart, “I was once baptized, therefore I am now a child of
God.” Alas, that consequence will by no means hold. How many are the baptized
gluttons and drunkards, the baptized liars and common swearers, the baptized
railers and evil-speakers, the baptized whoremongers, thieves, extortioners?
What think you? Are these now the children of God? Verily, I say unto you, unto
whom any of the preceding characters belongs, “Ye are of your father the devil,
and the works of your father ye do.” . . . Unto you I call, in the name of Him
whom you crucify afresh[.] . . . Lean no
more on the staff of that broken reed, that ye were born again in baptism. Who
denies that ye were then made children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of
heaven? But notwithstanding this, ye are now children of the devil. Therefore
ye must be born again. . . . To say, then, that ye cannot be born again, that
there is no new birth but in baptism, is to seal you all under damnation, to
consign you to hell, without help, without hope. . . . You will say, “But we
are washed;” we were born again “of water and of the Spirit.” So were . . .
these common harlots, adulterers, murderers. . . . This, therefore, hinders not
at all, but that ye may now be even as they. . . . And if ye have been baptized,
your only hope is this,—that those who were made the children of God by
baptism, but are now the children of the devil, may yet again receive “power to
become the sons of God;” that they may receive again what they have lost[.]
(Sermon 18, “Marks of the New Birth,” John Wesley, Elec. Acc. Wesley Center
Online,
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley-the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-18-the-marks-of-the-new-birth/)
the son or a child of God, [and] having the Spirit of adoption . . . are ordinarily
annexed to baptism (which is thence termed by our Lord [as] . . . being “born
of water and of the Spirit”) we know[.] . . . The question is not, what you was
[sic; also in the following] made in
baptism, but, What are you now? . . . I ask not, whether you was born of water
and of the Spirit; but are you now the temple of the Holy Ghost which dwelleth
in you? I allow you was “circumcised with the circumcision of Christ;” (As St.
Paul emphatically terms baptism;) but does the Spirit of Christ and of glory
now rest upon you? Else “your circumcision is become uncircumcision.” . . . Say
not then in your heart, “I was once baptized, therefore I am now a child of
God.” Alas, that consequence will by no means hold. How many are the baptized
gluttons and drunkards, the baptized liars and common swearers, the baptized
railers and evil-speakers, the baptized whoremongers, thieves, extortioners?
What think you? Are these now the children of God? Verily, I say unto you, unto
whom any of the preceding characters belongs, “Ye are of your father the devil,
and the works of your father ye do.” . . . Unto you I call, in the name of Him
whom you crucify afresh[.] . . . Lean no
more on the staff of that broken reed, that ye were born again in baptism. Who
denies that ye were then made children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of
heaven? But notwithstanding this, ye are now children of the devil. Therefore
ye must be born again. . . . To say, then, that ye cannot be born again, that
there is no new birth but in baptism, is to seal you all under damnation, to
consign you to hell, without help, without hope. . . . You will say, “But we
are washed;” we were born again “of water and of the Spirit.” So were . . .
these common harlots, adulterers, murderers. . . . This, therefore, hinders not
at all, but that ye may now be even as they. . . . And if ye have been baptized,
your only hope is this,—that those who were made the children of God by
baptism, but are now the children of the devil, may yet again receive “power to
become the sons of God;” that they may receive again what they have lost[.]
(Sermon 18, “Marks of the New Birth,” John Wesley, Elec. Acc. Wesley Center
Online,
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley-the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-18-the-marks-of-the-new-birth/)
In addition to the evidence I provided in my previous post, it should be evident from this sermon–which is found among the authoritative sermons by Wesley that were powerful, formative influences in Methodism–both that John Wesley believed in baptismal regeneration and that he called adults who did not live holy lives to conversion because they had lost the salvation they allegedly received in infant “baptism.”
–TDR
Used on Sharper Iron here. Thank you
You're welcome. Glad to have the article out.
It seemed that those who commented on Sharper Iron in relation to my first post were often more interested in expressing dissent with me than with dealing with the content of my article, but, be that as it may, I am still glad it was posted there.
You're welcome.
I accidentally posted the same comment (in full and then in part) twice above.
By the way, if people don't think Wesley was a heretic, despite the evidence above, they should just come out and say that they don't think baptismal regeneration is a heresy, or that those who hold it believe a false gospel, for such is the necessary consequence of their affirmation about Wesley, unless they wish to dispute that he actually believed in what he plainly preached.