Comparison of Wesley and Whitfield on Grace and Predestination - Essay Example

? Table of Contents Page I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3 II. Background………………………………………………………………………………3 III. Comparison of Wesley and Whitefield views on predestination……………………..5 A. Arminians and Calvinists Ideologies…………………………………..7 B. Comparison of Wesley and Whitefield on Grace………………………9 C. Wesley and Whitefield views on Perfection………………………….11 IV. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….13 V. Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………14 I. Introduction Three prominent religious members lay behind the evangelical movement that arose in English Christianity within the 1730s when Charles, John, and Wesley came together as Methodists. George Whitefield was a Calvinist while John Wesley and his brother Charles Wesley can be considered as Arminians. The reasons for Whitefield’s dedicated attitude can partly be linked to his close friendships with American evangelicals, which led into deeper comprehension of Puritan theology and its significance to evangelism and revivals. The paper explores the views of Wesley and Whitefield on the theology of grace and predestination. II. Background Prior to his departure, Whitefield’s sermon dwelling on “On the Nature and Necessity of Our Regeneration or New Birth in Christ Jesus” based on 2 Corinthians 5: 17 “if any man be in Christ he is a new creature.” In his sermon of 1737, “the doctrine of our generation, new birth in Christ Jesus” can be regarded as one of the most fundamental. Whitefield warned that, it is a “fatal mistake” to separate what God had inseparably joined together, and anticipate being justified by Christ devoid of sanctification.1 Whitefield’s doctrine paralleled those of John Wesley’s sermon entitled “Salvation by Faith.” Wesley concluded that the call to the righteousness, which permeates the Old and New Testament, was the prominent theme of Scripture. Whitefield sermons demonstrated that he agreed wholly with the Wesley that “nothing but a guarantee that people are born again that all are members of Christ united to Him by one and to the Holy Spirit that He was actuated” can fulfill the heart of man.2 The three also concurred on the nature and degree of the sanctification started through the work of the Holy Spirit within regeneration. When George Whitefield left England in 1739, he was appreciated as a leader of the evangelical awakening. Whitefield handed over his followers to John Wesley’s; nevertheless, when he returned in 1741, Whitefield found that a majority of his spiritual children were hostile to the extent that they sent threatening messages to him that God will speedily destroy him. This emanated from by the fact that, on Whitefield’s departure, Wesley had published a sermon titled “Free Grace,” which professed to be founded upon, Roman 8:32. John Wesley’s sermon, published in August 1739 and attempted to demonstrate how God’s Grace is “free in all and free for all.” Wesley’s message was a robust critique of the doctrine of predestination and election. Wesley believed such a doctrine was a precarious one and that it blasphemed the very person and nature of God. Election represents God’s choosing whom to save and it is unconditional, given that there is no condition man must satisfy before God chooses to save him. Calvinists concur that humankind must meet the condition of faith in Christ so as to inherit eternal life; however, faith is not a condition for election, but rather election is a condition of faith. Whitefield and Wesley could not find a common ground, which split the movement between the adherents of Wesley and those of Whitefield.3 The division arose from the fact that Whitefield and Wesley did not share the same doctrinal development. This arose from the fact that John Wesley had at his conversion (in 1738) embraced evangelical views on sin, re-birth, and faith; nevertheless, Wesley had at the same time preserved his pre-conversion opinions centering on the doctrines of predestination and the degree of the atonement.4 The religious influences that had shaped Wesley before his conversion were largely High Anglican, which does not come as a surprise that his opinions were Arminian rather than orthodox. The prominence of Wesley’s new form of evangelical faith exerted pervasive influence that persists even today.5 III. Comparison of Wesley and Whitefield views on predestination In response to Wesley, Whitefield argued that Wesley’s doctrine of “free grace” was treacherous to faith and blasphemous. George Whitefield letter speaking peace to Wesley highlighted that Wesley was in error for calling predestination “blasphemy.” Wesley had earlier indicated that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God and that it serves to devastate Christian happiness, holiness, and good works.6 In contrast, Whitefield held that the bible plainly presents the doctrine of predestination and that any doctrine that stated the contrary resulted to the heresy of universalism. Both Wesley and Whitefield presented strong arguments reinforcing their views. It is difficult to compare the two men on an equal platform since Whitefield only responds to issues in Wesley’s sermon rather than its entirety. Right from the time of his conversion in 1735, Whitefield was deeply conscious of man’s depravity, man’s need for new birth, and the fact that God possess the capability to save, Him alone. Whitefield was strengthened by his reading of the scriptures, the Puritans and the Reformers, and progressively grasped the connected chain of truths highlighted in the New Testament centering on Christ’s death on behalf of all whom the Father has given Him, the Father’s electing love, and Holy Spirit's infallible work in heralding salvation for all. Wesley deemed free will as the deciding factor in salvation. In rooting for free will, Wesley disliked predestination labeling it “blasphemy.” Wesley’s corruption of the will of God within sovereign grace aligns with his assertion that the will of God lies in His providence. In the letter from George Whitefield to John Wesley, Whitefield noted “for Jesus Christ sake, think about how you dishonor God by denying election. You clearly make a man’s [sic] salvation rely, not on God’s free grace, but on man’s free will.” Wesley’s affinity to, and departure from Arminian teachings, can be found in the examination of his accounts of faith, as well as his experience of conversion.7 Calvinists had instituted the sovereignty of God as a pertinent-category of thought. Wesley criticized extreme Calvinism, as well as the humanistic tendencies of the 18th century. The denial of predestination and an election was not the core emphasis, but only formed a very minimal part of his preaching. Wesley is in agreement with Calvinists on the free grace of God; however, the fact that grace cannot restricted unconditionally shapes Wesley’s point of divergence from Calvinism. In so doing, Wesley was not seeking to establish the absoluteness of human freedom, and the grounds of his teaching do not revolve around the natural capability of man, but centers on the grace of God.8 Humankind is incapable of producing faith, and it must be awarded to him by God; hence, salvation is by grace alone. A. Arminians and Calvinists Ideologies An Arminian is an individual who agrees with the notions of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), a protestant theologian who dismissed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Both Calvinists and Arminians concur that Salivation can only be possible through the regeneration of Holy Spirit, which means that man cannot save himself. Arminians and Calvinists also concur in the necessity for the Grace of God to save humankind. The two believe that God awards “common grace” (prevenient grace); nevertheless, the two groups differ on whether prevenient grace is adequate for the salvation of a sinner. The Arminian contends that prevenient grace is sufficient while the Calvinists assert that special grace from God necessitated coming to Salivation.9 As a result, Calvinists are regularly portrayed as fatalists given that they believe in predestination. The Calvinists, on the other hand, assert that predestination is grounded in the election and grace of God. Calvinists delineate this saving grace as “irresistible” grace that renders God’s predestination possible. Arminians hold that people are free to choose, and such capability ought to be exercise so as to receive Christ. However, Calvinists also point out that individuals ought to choose to receive Christ, but they reject that people are “free” to choose.10 Calvinists regard the soul of an individual as captive to sin; hence, people need a miracle of grace, even to have the opportunity to such a choice, which demonstrates that an individual is not free to choose Christ. Calvinists comprehended that God knew right from the start of creation all individuals who would be born into the world yielding to predestination to life. Furthermore, based on the sovereignty of God, Calvin presumed that Absolute Divine Will was a critical attribute. Hence, God was aware right from the beginning of times those individuals who would embrace the gift of grace since they could not deny owing to the preordained order of the world.11 Calvinists assert that, based on the depravity of humankind, individuals such as Wesley confuses Free Will with Divine Will. According to Wesley, all humans have the option of submitting to God’s initial gift of grace or deny it. Wesley held that it was God’s wish to bestow grace on the wretched. Wesley also held that one would need to be conscious of the fact that it was via faith (the gift of Grace from God) alone, rather than the good works that manifests while engaged in repentance faith that people are ready to build a deeper relationship with God via Christ.12 As such, Wesley can be considered as unique based on his ideas relating to: his rejection of predestination; connection of Prevenient Grace to Original Sin; Perception of God as the source of unlimited justice; and, the view that humans live as “First Adam” until the “Second Adam” (Christ) deliver all from their fallen state. B. Comparison of Wesley and Whitefield on Grace Wesley believed in the spirit of unity, which he considered being the essence of the church. Wesley held that disunity was destructive to the very mission of the church. According to Wesley, “whatever attunes with love to Christ and a work of grace aligns with the spirit of unity. The order of salvation encompass repentance (the porch of religion), holiness (religion itself), and faith (the door of religion).13 According to Wesley, salvation might be broadened to the whole work of God in the universe; therefore, the person can be only most infinitesimal possession of salvation. Wesley considered prevenient Grace as the “first dawning” of God in the lives of human. As such, humankind remains responsible before God for their salvation and cannot manufacture its own salvation (Pelagianism). Wesley contended that prevenient Grace avails humankind the minimum power required to turn toward God while still within Original Sin.14 Such power only enables humankind to embrace or refuse an initial relationship with God. Wesley claimed that prevenient Grace may be misidentified as “conscience.” The fact that Wesley consistently rooted for repentance from sin, was candid in his sermons against predestination and unconditional election, actively involved in divisive correspondence with Whitefield on the issue of election, perseverance, and perfection appear to highlight an extensive gulf between his teachings and those of Calvinists. In addition to his opposition to predestination, Wesley made significant contributions on the relationship between grace and faith.15 In the sermon of Free Grace, Wesley outlines why he is divergent to the doctrine of predestination: (1) eliminates motives for following after holiness; (2) makes preaching vain, unnecessary for the elect and futile for the non-elect; (3) self-contradictory; (4) it obliterates zeal for good works; (5) it appears to annihilate the comfort of religion; (6) makes the whole Christian revelation redundant; and, (8) it depicts the Lord as saying one thing and meaning another, which paints God as more cruel and unjust that the devil. Wesley also challenged against teaching the indispensable inherence of sin among the redeemed, the refutation of which was a principle of Calvinism, as well. This contributed to his doctrine of sanctification. The current orthodoxy restricted the number of the number of the elect, as well as the degree to which the Salvation of Christ might be achieved.16 Wesley’s teachings on free salvation translated to the thought “whosoever will” be liberated from all conscious sin. Wesley linked his doctrine of perfection via grace to personal categories and defined perfection in terms of love, based on love to God and man. According to Wesley, perfection related to “love nothing, but his sake,” in which the core goal centers on pleasing God rather than self. Wesley’s doctrine of perfection derived from passages of the scripture including John 17: 20-23; Mt 5: 48; Gal 2: 20; Th 5: 23; Mt 5: 48. Wesley utilized I John 1: 7,9 to highlight that the experience of perfection is one to be anticipated here and now rather than awaited at the time of death. Hence, perfection is to be anticipated here and now rather than consequent to the experience of justification. Wesley believed and edified that, instantaneous, perfection was “wrought in the soul” by a mere act of faith. The two experiences of perfection and conversion are to be distinguished, whereby the latter is preparatory to the former. Wesley refuted that the two are simultaneous by indicating that he was not aware of such a case.17 Perfection is outlined on a deeper level as being effect nothing “contrary to pure love.” Wesley did not prefer the term “sinless perfection” given that it is not scriptural. C. Wesley and Whitefield views on Perfection Christian perfection (heart purity; perfect love; Christian holiness; fullness of the blessing) represents a doctrine of Methodism, as well as emerging Holiness movement that stipulates that the heart of the regenerated may achieve a state of holiness where believers can be made free of original sin, as well as where there exists total love for God and others created by the infilling of the Holy spirit. Whitefield subscribed to the doctrine of sinless perfection, a doctrine that teaches that true Christians can achieve and live in a state of sinlessness, without sin.18 Some forms of this doctrine teach that right from the time that one is truly born again, they will never sin again and that anyone who fails to live and walk in such a state cannot be saved.19 This implies a standard of absolute perfection, whereby if a Christian is not perfect and without sin, it follows that such a person is not a Christian at all. This implies that is one gets born again, but stumbles into sin; the individual is immediately thrust under the wrath of God until repentance. The experience of perfection cannot restrict only to those who have been believers for an extended period. What is essential is not length of time, but attitude. The explanation why the experience of perfection is not gained draws from the fact that it is not expected, or sufficiently understood. Perfection is not a target that can be worked up nor is it the outcome of works. Since perfection is a product of faith, it may be obtained instantaneously. Instantaneous sanctification is attainable but not inevitable given that it can be sought by faith, as well as by works of faith.20 According to Wesley, perfection can imply the state of perfection or the journey to perfection. Perfection represents the process of sanctification where both progressive work of Grace and instantaneous work of grace manifest. Wesley held that Christian perfection represents “purity of intention where humankind dedicates all life to God filled with the fullness of God. Wesley did not utilize perfection to illustrate the state of sinlessness.21 Wesley commented “sinless perfection is a phrase that I select not to use, lest I appear to contradict myself.” Moreover, perfection is not the state of being incapable to sin, but rather it represents the state of selecting not to sin. Wesley’s perfection mirrors a change of life, sovereignty from willful rebellion against God, impure intents, and pride. Wesley did not perceive perfection as permanent. An individual could be sinless, but still make mistakes of diverse kinds. Omissions “are not properly sins”; however, an individual filled with the love of God would still be liable to the involuntary transgressions.22 An omission or even an erroneous action or word, provided that it emanates from love, cannot be regarded as a sin. It is surprising that, while Wesley was deeply convinced of the possibility of perfection, he never claimed the achievement of perfection himself. IV. Conclusion Whitefield and Wesley differed on the theology of grace and predestination. Wesley objected the concept of divine election and in 1740, published a sermon titled Free Grace highlighting that God’s grace extended to all people. The two subjects that split them were predestination (regarding whether God foreordains individual’s eternal destiny) and perfection (regarding whether sinlessness is achievable in this life). Whitefield teaches Christians a needful lesson that doctrinal differences between believers ought not to yield to personal antagonism. Error ought to be opposed even in instances where such error is held by fellow members of the Christ; nevertheless, in instances where that opposition fails to coexist with the true love for all Christians and a yearning for their spiritual prosperity, then such a division fails to glorify God or foster the edification of the church. Bibliography Augustine, Roland J. Teske, and Boniface Ramsey. Selected Writings on Grace and Pelagianism. New York: New City Press, 2011. Beard, Charles. The theological review, Volume 8. London: Williams & Norgate, 1871. Buschart, W. David. Exploring Protestant Traditions An Invitation to Theological Hospitality. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2006. Copinger, Walter. A treatise on predestination, election, and grace, historical: Historical , doctrinal, and practical. Memphis: General Books, 2012. Grigg, John A. The Lives of David Brainerd The Making of an American Evangelical Icon. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.  Klaiber, Walter, Manfred Marquardt, J. Steven O'Malley, and Ulrike R. M. Guthrie. Living Grace An Outline of United Methodist Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.  Knight, Henry H. The Presence of God in the Christian Life John Wesley and the Means of Grace. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1992.  Lambert, Frank. "Pedlar in Divinity": George Whitefield and the Transatlantic Revivals, 1737-1770. Princeton: Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2003. Lawrence, Anna M. One Family Under God Love, Belonging, and Authority in Early Transatlantic Methodism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.  Lay, Robert F. Readings in Historical Theology: Primary Sources of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2009. Levering, Matthew. Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Mahaffey, Jerome Dean. Preaching Politics: The Religious Rhetoric of George Whitefield and the Founding of a New Nation. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Olson, Roger. Arminian Theology: Myths and realities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Perry, George. The history of the church of England from the death of Elizabeth to the present time. London: Saunders, Otly, and Co., 1864. Schwenk, James L. Catholic Spirit: Wesley, Whitefield, and the Quest for Evangelical Unity in Eighteenth-Century British Methodism. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2008. Weber, Max. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, New York: Routledge, 2012. Wesley, John, and Alice Russie. The Essential Works of John Wesley Selected Sermons, Essays, and Other Writings. Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour, 2011.  Zanchius, Jerome. Absolute Predestination. Evansville: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 2001. Read More