Hello, I'm Wilson Pruitt, and you are listening to the History of Methodism Podcast. You can support us online at patreon.com/historyofmethodism. Please rate and review wherever you get your podcasts.
Today’s Episode: Free Grace.
The great evangelist George Whitefield died in September of 1770 in Massachusetts, in a colony on the eve of a revolution he had helped to foment through the unifying nature of his revival (which we will get to in time). John Wesley preached a sermon that year in memory of Whitefield, where he wrote:
let us keep close to the grand scriptural doctrines which he everywhere delivered. There are many doctrines of a less essential nature, with regard to which even the sincere children of God (such is the present weakness of human understanding) are and have been divided for many ages. In these we may think and let think; we may "agree to disagree." But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials of "the faith which was once delivered to the saints;" and which this champion of God so strongly insisted on, at all times, and in all places!1
At this point in his life, at the age of 67, John did not see the division between Calvinism and Arminianism as a grand. This was not always the case. In 1739, at the age of 36, John saw the stringency of predestinarian thought as contrary to the will and love of God. When he came to Bristol in April of that year, he encountered new Christians hungry for the word of God. He also encountered folks taught by Whitefield and other predestinarians and a level of sorting had begun to take place between predestinarian Methodists and free will Methodists.
Against this tide, John Wesley preached his sermon “Free Grace” on a text from Romans 8:32. The next year, he published it and distributed it widely. This sermon was not the cause of the split between Wesley and Whitefield, but it illustrated the chasm that had developed and necessitated a response from Whitefield which we shall delve into in our next episode. In fact, there was a pamplet produced against the sermon before it was in print, a reality that necessitated its publication.
Before we get to the sermon, a brief note on terms. We are in a strange realm of anachronism to talk about Whitefield as a Calvinist in 1739. At this point, he hadn’t read much of Calvin’s work nor the broader reformed tradition beyond a few texts. His was an intuitive Calvinism based on his experience of Total depravity and the only possibility of salvation through the predestination of the saints by the providence of God. His reading of Scripture backed this up.
Similarly, John Wesley was not widely read in Arminian thought, but his own intuition led him towards this Free Will view of God’s grace and his reading of Scriptures backed this up. I say that to make sure we understand that this dispute was not of the ivory tower kind over minute details, but a clash of biblical understanding and personal experience. I will try to avoid using language of Calvinism or reformed thought or Arminianism in order to keep clear what is going on at the time Free Grace was preached.
Wesley uses text of the Romans 8:32 in the sermon he preached in late April: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"
He begins early in Romans by quoting Romans 5:8, 5:6, and then alluding to Ephesians 2:5.
How freely does God love the world! While we were yet sinners, "Christ died for the ungodly." While we were "dead in our sin," God "spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." And how freely with him does he "give us all things!" Verily, FREE GRACE is all in all!2
Wesley then clarifies that the grace which is given by God is not dependent on the recipient.
First. It is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is.3
Whitefield could wholeheartedly agree with this point. Whitefield, in fact, often preached using the language of free grace and mentioned it regularly in his journals and autobiography.
Next, John goes in a different direction from Whitefield and builds his own characterization of the Predestinarian position:
But it is free for ALL, as well as IN ALL. To this some have answered, "No: It is free only for those whom God hath ordained to life; and they are but a little flock. The greater part of God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and, therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this he absolutely decreed; because so was his good pleasure; because it was his sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, -- to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives. he gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation."4
Wesley then offers a few responses that predestinarians could give before claiming,
Call it therefore by whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this, -- by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned. or that any of the latter should be saved.5
This means that, for Wesley, if we concede a predestinarian view of grace, all preaching is in vain and holiness is useless. Wesley offers five proofs against predestination.
This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy.6
Thirdly. This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobated, or who only suspect or fear it. All the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort: For they are not the elect of God; therefore they have neither lot nor portion in them.7
Fourthly. This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. And this it does, First, as it naturally tends (according to what was observed before) to destroy our love to the greater part of mankind, namely, the evil and unthankful.8
But, Fifthly, this doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. The point which the wisest of the modern unbelievers most industriously labour to prove, is, that the Christian Revelation is not necessary.9
John Wesley then alludes to Calvin for the first and only time when describes predestination as “a horrible decree.” Albert Outler points out in a footnote in the collected sermons, how in theInstitutes Volume III, Calvin writes in the Latin edition: Decretum quidem horribile fateor, or ‘That this decree is dreadful, I admit.’10
Here is the entire paragraph where Wesley makes the allusion:
This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. 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; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning.11
Wesley concludes the sermon by comparing the God of predestination unfavorably to Moloch.
Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the 'fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but 'the smoke of their torment,' because it is God's good pleasure, 'ascendeth up for ever and ever.’”12
He compares this reading to the eternal decree as divine foreknowledge.
But what decree? Even this: "I will set before the sons of men 'life and death, blessing cursing.' And the soul that chooseth life shall live, as the soul that chooseth death shall die." This decree whereby "whom God did foreknow, he did predestinate," was indeed from everlasting; this, whereby all who suffer Christ to make them alive are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God," now standeth fast, even as the moon, and as the faithful witnesses in heaven; and when heaven and earth shall pass away, yet this shall not pass away; for it is as unchangeable and eternal as is the being of God that gave it. This decree yields the strongest encouragement to abound in all good works and in all holiness; and it is a well-spring of joy, of happiness also, to our great and endless comfort. This is worthy of God; it is every way consistent with all the perfections of his nature. It gives us the noblest view both of his justice, mercy, and truth. To this agrees the whole scope of the Christian Revelation, as well as all the parts thereof.13
Here John quotes John 17:24, Deuteronomy 30:19, Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2, Psalm 89:36, and Matthew 24. It is a biblically rich sermon filled with citation and allusion.
Finally, John offers a call for repentance.
O hear ye this, ye that forget God! Ye cannot charge your death upon him! ‘Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?' saith the Lord God." (Ezek. 18:23ff.) "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions;”14
John could not logically imagine the point of repentance and conversion for a god of predestination. Others could. Before we go deeper into the events of 1739, we need to understand the various responses that were published to Free Grace, driving a wedge between Wesley and Whitefield that would never be fully healed.
Next time on the History of Methodism.