An Interview with Wesley, Calvin & a Modern Wesleyan

Keith Drury: I’m delighted to have all three of you together to discuss your points of agreement. Let’s make this a good conversation for the readers on the Internet OK?

John Wesley & John Calvin [simultaneously]: What’s an Enter Net?

Modern Wesleyan: [rolls eyes]

Original Sin

Keith Drury: Let’s talk about original sin—Mister Calvin you’re famous for thinking people are bad—are they?

Calvin: I believe the moral image of God has been completely destroyed in humanity; humans are spiritually dead to God; the only way to be saved is by God taking the first step; however, some vestiges of “natural image” and “political image” of God remain enabling human rationality—but these remnants are never enough to enable a person to move themselves toward salvation.

Wesley: I have nothing at all to add—I agree 100% on this point with Calvin.

Modern Wesleyan: No way! I disagree with both of you. I believe people are stained by original sin but I don’t believe they are so depraved that they can’t decide to receive Christ immediately when I share Christ with them. I believe God has laid down a blanket of “Prevenient grace” over the whole world—so that every person alive already has enough of God’s grace to respond to the gospel. I witness and preach to people expecting them to respond now—not just sit around waiting for God to give them the gift of faith whenever He pleases. God has already given every person on earth enough grace to choose Christ. All we have to do is get out there and share the gospel and persuade them to say yes. Brother Wesley you have been spending too much time talking to George Whitefield—his Calvinism has been rubbing off on you.

Drury: OK Modern Wesleyan be nice to our guests, this is not an Internet forum.

Wesley & Calvin [simultaneously]: What’s an Enter Net forum?

Drury: So, what about saving faith—is it a decision or a gift of God?

Faith as a gift of God

Wesley: It is a gift of God. Faith is not a decision we make any time we want to, but is a gift of God that comes in God’s timing not ours. Humans can’t work up faith on their own or try to believe. To find faith an unbeliever can only put themselves in the “means of grace” where God can and will in His own timing grant them faith. Thus evangelism is getting people to hear the gospel, organizing them into small groups to read Scripture, pray, fast and experience the other means of grace—among these means of grace they will experience the gift of faith which comes from God alone.

Calvin: Once again we agree—Mister Wesley and I. Our positions are exactly the same on this matter too. I’m glad to know you have stayed true to my own view on these matters.

Modern Wesleyan: I see this all differently. To me, God extended the gift of Salvation to all men and women everywhere on earth when Christ died on Calvary. Salvation is a gift held out by God to all all. What we do to receive it is simply reach out and take it. Men and women already have all the grace they need to receive the salvation that has already been given. The Christmas gift is bought, paid for and already in front of us—all we have to do is take it. Nobody needs to ever wait to get faith—they simply need to believe. So, every time I present the gospel to an unbeliever I know they have the power to believe right then and there. This is why I try so hard to be persuasive in my presentation—there is no such thing as “not the right timing” for a person to get saved. Wesley, you sound too Calvinistic to me in your position.

Drury: OK, so our two theologians have shown that they agree on two important things—original sin and faith as a gift of God—so does this mean that you, John Wesley are “a Calvinist?”

Wesley: It does not—but I am hair’s breadth away from Calvin’s positions. I don’t mean to split hairs here, but Calvin and I differ significantly on at least two very important hairs: irresistible grace and predestination (the same points Whitefield and I disagreed on). I’ll let John here explain his views on these points first, then I’ll point out my own differences.

Grace as [ir]resistible

Calvin: I’d be delighted to explain my views on these two matters—it always makes me nervous when a Wesleyan explains my views. Although this discussion so far is making me wonder how “Wesleyan” John really is. First, let me explain irresistible grace. As you’ve pointed out in your rather well-written article, John Wesley and I agree that faith is a gift of God and comes from God only when He gives it. He and I also agree that this faith comes by grace alone—the unmerited favor of God. I now take the obvious next step by stating unequivocally that this grace of God is irresistible. When God gives a man faith he cannot refuse it, after all God is God—if humans could resist Him he would not longer be sovereign. What other idea would make any sense to a thinking man?

Wesley: I can travel the road a long way with you Brother Calvin but not this far. I believe that when God chooses to give a person the gift of faith that person can resist the grace—refusing to receive the grace God is giving and refusing to let the seed of faith grow in their heart. While I do not believe in the sort of “free will” that enables a person to choose Christ whenever they want, I do believe a human has free will enough to refuse God’s grace when it comes. Thus Brother Calvin and I part ways on this question: can a person resist or refuse God’s grace when it comes? He says no, I say yes. But what does this modern Wesleyan believe?

Modern Wesleyan: I haven’t really thought much about whether grace is resistible or not. I guess I agree more with Wesley because free will and individualism seem like obvious truths to me and my culture. I suppose I don’t even ask the question the same way since I don’t agree with you guys on the faith-as-a-gift-of-God thing. You both say that God decides when to zap a person with faith as they get under the influence of the “means of grace.” So you have got to ask the question if a person can refuse that faith-zap when it comes. As for me I think any person anywhere in the world already has enough grace to receive Christ and all they have to do is decide. I’m not into this notion of God-zapping. The time is now and God has already zapped everyone in the world with enough grace to receive Christ and that grace is not resistible. Seems like both you guys take salvation away from humans and make it more about God—that makes me real uncomfortable. So I guess I believe in irresistible “blanket grace” making it possible for people to believe, but when it comes to actual faith I think it is more about making up one’s mind than getting anything from God. So I’m not even on the same page as you old folks.

Wesley: What church did you say you belong to? [Wesley hears the answer and then mumbles under his breath: Wesleyan? Did you really name your denomination after me—what a revolting idea!]

Predestination & Election

Drury: I see—while you two agree on original sin and the gift of faith that comes by grace you differ on the matter of a human’s power to resist that grace. I think I know the next area of disagreement: predestination. Brother Calvin, how about if you go first again…what is your position on predestination?

Calvin: That’s an easy one—my position is the clear Biblical teaching on the matter. I believe a sovereign God before the foundation of the world chose who would be saved and go to heaven and who would be lost and go to hell. People are predestined—before they are ever born—to either heaven or hell and there is nothing they can do to change their destination. And God did not do this “conditioned” on some future choice or action we would make. That would be tantamount to letting salvation be a work of man. It is unconditional election. When a person chosen by God gets under the influence of the means of grace their faith will be born and grow. If another person who was not previously chosen by God gets into that same flow of grace nothing whatsoever will happen for God will not grant them the gift of faith. I believe that a person’s salvation is a matter of God’s work completely and wholly and not of man. If a man could decide to be saved, or refuse God’s saving grace then God would not be God. God has chosen long ago who would be His sons and daughters and who would be cast out into everlasting darkness. The only “decision” related to one’s salvation is the decision God made before the foundation of the world. How far will you go with me down this Emmaus road my friend, John Wesley?

Wesley: Not all the way, but I can go part way on the matter of election. First I believe that God elects some to do certain works, as Paul was elected to preach the gospel—an election to a calling. And I can agree that God has unconditionally elected some nations to receive certain privileges, particularly the Jewish nation. I can even believe that God has unconditionally elected some nations to hear the gospel. As for individuals I can accept the idea that God has unconditionally elected some people to peculiar advantages both in material matters and spiritual things. But I can go a bit further with you Brother Calvin than this. I cannot prove it but I will not deny that God has unconditionally elected some persons to eternal glory. That is (while I cannot prove it) I will not argue with your saying that God elects some people to go to heaven. [See footnote below] But that is where I stop walking with you down this path. I cannot believe that all the people not elected must perish everlastingly. And I will not believe that there is one soul on earth anywhere who has not had the possibility of escaping eternal damnation. So I can go a piece down this road of election with you Brother Calvin—even as far as to allow for some people to be elected to salvation. But I will not go so far as to design a God who would not give all people an opportunity to refuse or accept His loving grace—whosoever will may come.

Modern Wesleyan: I haven’t talked about this stuff since I was in seminary! I’ve been reading this new book by Barna: Revolutions—boy that is interesting. Do you think the house church really will come back? Oh yeah, and I recently read John Maxwell’s Thinking for a Change. And since I haven’t been in touch enough with the emerging church I spent last month reading A New Kind of Christian, The Barbarian Way, Generous Orthodoxy and Blue like Jazz. I really haven’t been thinking much about predestination.

Drury: Well Mod Wesleyan, could you at least give a short comment on these theologians’ remarks?

Modern Wesleyan: OK, I suppose I’d have to go with Wesley on this one (though I didn’t know how far he went on predestination really). I am not willing to say that God picked who would go to hell and heaven before the world was created. Hey, I just thought of an idea… maybe God predestined everyone in the world to be saved—they were all chosen, but some refuse it—sort of resistible total election? Has anyone ever thought of that before? Gee, though, I don’t know for sure. Do people really care about this? I’m a “good Wesleyan” so I don’t believe in predestination—but I don’t know if it makes any difference in my life either way. It seems like theoretical discussion to me. Hey, sorry, I gotta’ go—my Amazon.com order of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis just arrived.

Drury: Well sorry to see you go Mod, I’d really like to ask these gentlemen about other areas where they differ and agree, but I understand that the pace of church life is much more demanding than in these old folks’ day so we’ll let you get back to your work. Would you two theologians be willing to come back again for another interview some time?

Calvin: By all means, I’m always delighted to be able to explain the clear Biblical teachings on matters to Wesleyans and Methodists. I am pleased to know you are interested in thoughtful discourse.

Wesley: Sure I’ll come back if it helps. Frankly I’d like to visit some of the Methodist churches anyway—to check if they’ve departed from the key practices of our Methodist movement. And for certain I’d like to visit some of these so-called “splinter groups” like Nazarenes and Wesleyans or Free Methodists who say they are the true inheritors of Methodism. If you will escort me on a tour of some of these churches I’ll happily come back and talk theology more. As you know I am far more interested in the state of serious religion in the daily lives of the people as I am in theological discussions.

Drury: Thanks to all three of you—we’ll have you back some time. Maybe we can get some questions from our audience for you to address. I’ll start a Discussion Thread online for them to post them on.

Wesley & Calvin [simultaneously]: What’s an On Line Thread?

-----------------------------------------------

By Keith Drury 10.31.05 www.TuesdayColumn.com

çClick here to comment or read comments on Wesley’s Calvinism

1. This answer is paraphrased from Wesley’s attempt to find common ground with Whitefield in 1743. Most of my representation of Wesley at other points is widely accepted, but this hair’s breadth stance on predestination is so strange and unbelievable to modern Wesleyans/Methodists that you probably should read the actual words for yourself to determine how much liberty I took paraphrasing it. ( Of course Wesley was a moving target in his thinking so you still could argue that he may have “recanted some of his Calvinism” later— To read the actual words I paraphrased on Wesley and Predestination click here.