Home » Posts tagged 'Charles Wesley'
Tag Archives: Charles Wesley
The Theology of John Wesley and Its Impact on the Methodist and Wesleyan Churches (Part Two)
John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield began their search for the truth within the infrastructure of the Church of England in the early 18th century. John started the formal Christian religious denomination, the Methodists, with a break from the Moravians after having been an ordained Anglican cleric. No one sent him. He operated as a free agent without authority to start what he wanted, maybe listening to a mystical voice-in-his-head. Perhaps he gave up because he thought nothing represented the truth as he saw it. Others have done the same in starting new religions with unique belief and practice.
Holiness
A chief concern for the Wesleys, as seen in their writings and those of others who heard them, was the lack of holiness among those professing Christianity. They expected a more strict lifestyle in accordance with moral law. I understand that assessment. However, what causes this absence of holiness among those who call themselves Christian? Their conclusion was an observable deficiency of discipline, a need of a different method, hence Methodism.
Scripture, however, shows that holiness comes as fruit of the Holy Spirit through true conversion. You can’t whip it up or pull it up by the bootstraps. The Church of England still advocated a false gospel like unto Roman Catholicism from which it proceeded. Unbelief will not produce holy living. The ritual of sacrament and ceremony doesn’t cause holiness.
Nonetheless, the Wesleys wanted more holiness among professing Christians. Under the patch work of disparate theological influences, the Wesleys styled a view of the atonement to generate the greatest personal holiness. They rejected straight judicial, penal substitution with its imputed righteousness for what men now call, “participatory atonement.”
Grace Alone?
Roman Catholicism says grace saves us. Mormonism says grace saves us. Almost every Christian denomination or religion says grace saves us. If you asked the Judaizers in Galatia whether grace saved us, surely they would also answer, “yes.” A unique sect of Christianity could easily say that grace alone saves us. The Wesleys taught that at the moment of the new birth God imparts to someone the power or ability to live holy. This impartation comes through a mystical experience one has in participating with the death of Christ.
John Wesley had a problem with the teaching that imputed righteousness justifies a sinner. He received imputed righteousness, but it pardoned only his past sin. At that point, God imparted righteousness that enabled him to strive for holiness and live a holy life. These good works are required for salvation.
With Methodist or Wesleyan doctrine, someone may receive righteousness by faith, but faith that comes through the experience. The experience includes repentance. In the works of John Wesley, you can read of conversations in 1744 between the Wesleys and a few others to form a catechism of questions and answers. It read:
But must not repentance and works meet for repentance, go before this faith? Without doubt; if by repentance you mean conviction of sin, and by works meet for repentance, obeying God as we can, forgiving our brother, leaving off from evil, doing good, and using his ordinances according to the power we have received.
Baptism and Eternal Security
According to this, a faith that might justify would only do so through works meet for repentance. In addition, concerning baptism John Wesley said:
What are the benefits we receive by baptism, is the next point to be considered. And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ’s death. . . . . By baptism, we who were “by nature children of wrath” are made the children of God.
The perfectionism of the Wesleys meant that with their view of sin, someone could live a technically sinless life. This theory of participatory atonement required participation. Without it, someone could lose his salvation. In the same catechism referred above, the Wesleys said:
Are works necessary to the continuance of faith? Without doubt, for many forfeit the free gift of God, either by sins of omission or commission. Can faith be lost for want of works? It cannot but through disobedience.
You can find statements where it seems that John Wesley did believe in salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Yet, if you can lose salvation, who is doing the saving? Some of what he wrote seems to agree with judicial, penal substitution. All of that you must also see in the context of everything else he wrote and said that contradicts penal substitution. Then today you look at the fruit in Methodist and Wesleyan belief and practice.
The Unholy Fruit
Holiness doesn’t just happen. It comes the way scripture explains that it comes. Holiness won’t occur through a different means than what God says. That proves itself out too. Methodists and Wesleyans might call themselves holiness, but their deficient and skewed beliefs won’t produce true holiness. This manifests itself over a period, where the trajectory of personal living moves away from holiness.
Holiness is an attribute of God. People don’t live holy without God. The holiness people receive comes through true conversion and the atonement of true conversion is penal substitution. Other views of atonement are not true or scriptural and they do not provide for holiness. The failure to live holy comes from not receiving holiness by grace through faith.
The Wesleys taught faith as the threshold of holiness. It opened for someone the opportunity for a process. If that process did not end in perfection, that person was not saved.
Confusion or Clarity?
If you are reading this post and confused about what Wesley believed, join the club. It’s difficult to sort through what he said, perhaps nothing as so plainly muddled as reading a sermon he preached, “The Scripture Way of Salvation.” I found it almost impossible to understand. His teaching made it very difficult to have assurance of salvation. On many different occasions in his lifetime, through letters he expressed extreme doubt, surely because of his convoluted understanding of salvation.
Salvation is clear in the Bible in contrast to salvation of Wesleyan and Methodist teaching. Paul taught grace and works as mutually exclusive. Romans 11:6 says:
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
One who adds works to grace, like the Wesleys did, “Christ profits [them] nothing” and they become “debtor[s] to do the whole law.” Jesus is clear. Paul is clear. The Wesleys were not and Wesleyan and Methodist belief, teaching, and practice are the fruit of that.
The Theology of John Wesley and Its Impact on the Methodist and Wesleyan Churches
In my thirty-three years of church planting and then pastoring in the San Francisco Bay Area, I never met a converted or saved Methodist. It was just the opposite. They were some of the most liberal, unsaved people I ever met.
I’m not Methodist. Even when I look at the history, I ask from where do the Methodists get their authority. If I ask about the Methodists, then I definitely ask the same of the Wesleyans. They can’t trace their lineage to a true church. They functioned in and from the state church, taking on some of the characteristics of the apostate denomination from which they came.
The Wesleys and Whitefield
The Wesleys arose within the Church of England. They knew something was amiss there. They changed. When I read Wesley, as have others, I see a heap of contradictions though. They never understood nor broke from the corrupt root from which they sprang.
George Whitefield and John Wesley had their break-up. Whitefield studied and went an orthodox biblical direction. He preached a true gospel the basis of the Great Awakening in the American colonies. Wesley took the Methodists a different direction with a different theology than the true salvation preaching of Whitefield. Every way that Wesley countered Whitefield, he headed the wrong way compared to Whitefield.
Now I look at the fruit of what Wesley taught. Mostly today, Methodism went liberal. Whatever errors John Wesley believed, the Methodists took a trajectory then away and then further away from the truth. The perversion in Wesleyan doctrine interrelates in several points of biblical doctrine. Wesley’s unbiblical errors, even though they leave quite a bit of truth in Wesleyan and Methodist belief, they spoil the whole pot or body.
Wesleyan and Methodist Fruit
While I write on Wesleyan and Methodist error today, I’m working in the Midwest United States in Indiana. With their wrong doctrines, they still associate themselves with Christianity. This dominates my present county and surrounding counties where I serve the Lord. It blinds the population. It produces false doctrine and practice.
I tend to think right away that Wesleyans and Methodists are wrong. However, when I listen to some of them, I hear enough truth that it becomes difficult to sort out where they divert from the truth. There are many subtle errors that massed together they become very significant.
John Wesley and Sin
John Wesley taught a convoluted, unscriptural view of sin. In the Works of John Wesley, Volume 12, p. 394, we read that Wesley wrote:
Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore, every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly.
When you read that first sentence, it might sound good. The next one becomes problematic, especially his saying, “and nothing else, if we speak properly.” Sin is more than just a breach of the law of love. He also says, “voluntary breach,” so that a person must give assent, activate his will, for sin to occur. This definition sets Wesley and his followers up for greater problems.
Perfectionism
If sin is this breach of the law of love, it is easy then to see how that a different view of atonement and salvation occurs. By limiting or twisting the definition of sin, according to John Wesley someone could live without sinning, a theology called “perfectionism.” I might call it, “dumbing down sin.” 1 John 3:8 says:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Wesley wrote concerning this in Explanatory Notes on the NT (1818) on p. 661:
Whosoever abideth in communion with him, by loving faith, sinneth not – While he so abideth. Whosoever sinneth certainly seeth him not – The loving eye of his soul is not then fixed upon God; neither doth he then experimentally know him – Whatever he did in time past.
Participatory Atonement
Even though Wesley talks an acceptance of substitutionary atonement, he mixes in other various views of atonement that created a doctrinal quagmire. It’s why you hear so much differing and contradictory doctrine from Wesleyans and Methodists. It’s also why they can easily move into theological liberalism. For instance, Wesley communicates what is called “participatory atonement.”
John Wesley did not have a settled theology or doctrine of salvation before he became the head of a major Christian denomination. He was still working it out. He knew something was wrong in the Christianity he observed. Wesley never pinpointed what was wrong with the Church of England to the extent that he provided a separate correction of Anglican soteriology.
This view, participatory atonement, itself blends together various views of atonement. The cross of Christ is the means by which human beings can die with Christ and be reborn in Him. They experience the crucifixion of Christ with him in a mystical way. Many of the Wesley hymns make reference to this view.
The Place of Moral Example
Participatory atonement has strong parallels with the moral example theory of atonement, where Christ’s death on the cross was a kind of exclamation point of a life of love. By dying, Jesus provided a moral example, that if lived, atonement is received. With the Wesleyan participatory atonement, someone by faith subjects himself to the crucifixion that Christ suffered, fulfilling the law of love. God creates new life in the individual who enters solidarity with Christ in the love of His suffering and death.
The idea of dying with Christ sounds right even to someone who believes in penal substitution. However, this participatory atonement is something different than the historical interpretation of Galatians 2:20 (“I am crucified with Christ”). Concerning the defeat of the works of Satan through His death, Wesley wrote: “It is by thus manifesting himself in our hearts that he effectually ‘destroys the works of the devil’.” This mirrors the participatory atonement view. The Wesleys make more reference than other verse in the hymns of their hymnal than they do Galatians 2:20.
Wesley expressed opposition to the view of penal substitution. He saw the imputation of righteousness as a pass for unholy living. Everything is finished, so someone would just rest in that. Wesley had a great concern for the activation of holiness in a person’s life. He expressed a view of atonement that would yield that moral result.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
Baptism and the Lord’s Table for Wesley become a means of grace by which men experience participatory atonement. In Wesley’s explanation of Romans 6:3, he writes:
In baptism we, through faith, are ingrafted into Christ; and we draw new spiritual life from this new root, through his Spirit, who fashions us like unto him, and particularly with regard to his death and resurrection.
Concerning the Lord’s Table, Charles Wesley wrote this hymn:
O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!
The Wesleys believed that the real presence of Christ was found in the elements imparting saving grace. Charles Wesley also wrote this:
With solemn faith we offer up,
And spread before thy glorious eyes
That only ground of all our hope,
That all-sufficient sacrifice,
Which brings thy grace on sinners down,
And perfects all our souls in one.
I’m very sure that most of you reading do not sing these Wesley hymns in your services or for worship. Charles wrote them and others like them though.
More To Come
Recent Comments