John Wesley Lays the Smackdown on Predestination
by pastormack
Granted, it is doubtful that Wesley would be a WWE fan, but it seems like an adequate description of the argument I am about to share.
Came across this gem as I began to reread Randy Maddox’s modern classic Responsible Grace in hopes that it will spark ideas as I begin to write my ordination papers. For Methodists, there is probably no better broad interpretation of Wesley’s whole project than this monograph. For non-Methodists, it is important for its contributions to practical theology and for its suggestions (via Wesleyan soteriology) toward healing the Orthodox-Catholic rift.
This particular passage comes during a discussion of Wesley’s view of Scripture. For Papa John, it was important that any text be interpreted within the structure and thrust of the whole Bible. To defend a devilish doctrine – like predestination – on Scriptural grounds was, for Wesley, an affront to the whole testimony of the Bible. Predestination, he says,
destroys all His attributes at once. It overturns both his justice, mercy and truth. Yea, it represents the most Holy God as worse than the devil…. But you say you will ‘prove it by Scripture’. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture? That God is worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never can prove this….There are many Scriptures the true sense whereof neither you or I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were such say it had no sense at all than to say it had such a sense as this….No Scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all this works. (“Free Grace,” quoted in Maddox, 39.)
Calvinism has been resurgent lately (and not the friendly, graceful Barthian version). I’m not sure why, except perhaps that in an age of sloganeering and polarization, there are folks attracted to strong convictions of whatever sort, regardless of theological merit. Of course, hardcore Calvinists will say that we Arminians lean towards works righteousness or universalism. But, with Wesley, I would affirm that double predestination turns the God of the Bible into an unrecognizable tyrant.
The full text of the above sermon is available here.
I bet he dreamt of becoming a wrestler. Maybe he moonlighted as one while circuit riding.
In any case, I think he makes a good point. As I understand them, Calvinists often hide behind God’s sovereignty. I like Wesley’s extra-biblical response.
I remember reading a Wesley sermon where he went after the Presbies on this. It was pretty painful reading, actually. Not exactly full of charity.
Dr. Gillespie at Princeton once said that the whole matter really starts when we say faith is a gift of God (which it is), and then begin to wonder why God gives the gift to some but not others.
Haha, yes, Wesley is not the first theologian to get a little crisp when he felt the character of God was at stake. He was also writing in the context of 18th century Anglicanism, which was very much divided on the issue of predestination. He felt it harmed the character of God, undercut human response-ability, and damaged the call to evangelize.
Of course all Christians would have to affirm that faith is a gift, and wondering why some get it and some don’t is natural. The leap comes when we ask further: does God gift the gift arbitrarily, or because He knows in His gracious omniscience who will reject and who will claim that gift?
I’ve also found it strange how many hardcore reformed folks are much more interested in preserving God’s glory than insisting on His benevolence. If Jesus is indeed the fullest revelation of who God is, prioritizing God’s moral qualities in this manner seems like poppycock.
I’m quite open to some of Barth’s reworking of reformed categories, though.
Sorry. The reference to divine omniscience seems a little to easy. It’s like trying to tie something into a neat bow, when it is best to leave it open.
I have read Calvin and Wesley, and I try to take from them what I find valuable (and stay out of the quarrels). For all his faults, Calvin was just trying to follow a trajectory he thought was set in motion by Paul and Augustine.
I have wondered too about the new Calvinism and its appeal. My sense is that folks are hungry for a robust version of Christianity, and Calvin fits that bill, with his vision of God as King, Father and Lawgiver.
So often we take comfort in certain truths which touch on the sovereignty of God. Think of how as believers “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) or that for all of mankind God has “determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings…” (Acts 17:26).
We come in reverent fear before God when we read that “he looks at the earth, and it trembles; he touches the mountains, and they smoke.” (Psalm 104:32). What sweet repose we take, knowing that the hairs on our head are numbered and that we are worth more than many sparrows, after all “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will” (Matthew 10:29).
In all of these areas God exercises His sovereignty, but when we dare apply God’s pre-determined sovereign will to the salvation of men and women we hear the cry: “devilish doctrine!”
And yet, apart from God’s sovereign election, no one would ever come to Him or experience salvation. Predestination doesn’t destroy God’s attributes, it affirms them in a way that we can truly cry out saying, “God You are altogether merciful and good, there is none like You!” Only through His intervention can any of us receive Christ by faith.
While we may disagree on this, I think a recent blog post concerning how Calvinist/Arminian brothers and sisters ought to treat one another is worth noting, and a reminder that I often need to preach to myself:
http://thebereanway.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/for-and-against-calvinism/
I think – no, actually I’m sure – that one can affirm that salvation is God’s work from first to last, without affirming predestination.
Wesley spoke of “prevenient grace” – or, “preventing” grace – his term for the notion that before we are born and before we can ever know God, he is working in us and for us, he loves us and is calling to us. Prevenient grace is something given to everyone as partakers of the divine image; God, in the end, wants us all.
Predestination would mean this is not true. I find that a hard pill to swallow, not least because I find that God difficult to worship, but also because it goes against the portrait of Scripture. Side-by-side pictures of the elect, of sheep and goats and wheat and chaff, are also plentiful images of God wanting the whole: “every knee shall bow, on heaven and on the earth and under the earth;” “Christ has bound all in disobedience so that he might be merciful to all,” and etc.
I do think more of these discussions are necessary. So often the Reformed camp is so busy shouting “sovereignty!” that we Methodists forget to call out “grace!” Wesley actually wrote that we are not so far apart as we often suppose. His friendship with Whitefield, a Calvinist evangelical, was proof enough of this. Thank you for thoughtful and kind responses.
This was a really interesting blog entry. Especially the reference to Wesley- yup never read that before. Very provocative!
To be clear, and forthright, I lean calvinist. So I have a quick question:
1) “Is God worse than the devil” as Wesley said?
Well, two intellectual thoughts, first if one object supersedes another then it is not actually like the former. That is if God supersedes the Devil, surely, attributes remain but the superseding declares God is something more, and precisely not just “evil” like the Devil. Otherwise God = Devil.
Secondly, I would really use the comment by Wesley to highlight Calvinism’s emphasis on faith. How Hebrews says “faith is the assurance of things hoped for”. It’s about grace being a promise, not really having much to do with a choice…
Again, great post and great comments! Thanks for letting me participate.