Tuesday, December 31, 2019

the main thesis of the book


Arminian theology differs from Calvinist theology on every vital issue. Arminians pretend to uphold the supremacy of scripture in their doctrine and beliefs, but they do not. Instead they depend on the strength and validity of their human faculties to interpret scripture and establish doctrine, rather than the revelation of the Holy Spirit. They first declare their assumptions to be axiomatic and use these to interpret God’s word. Foremost of these is the freedom of the human will, next being the universal, indiscriminate love of God for all sinners. Some pretend to hold to the sovereignty of God over his Creation, but none actually do. Effectively, they believe that man is equal to God in rights and responsibilities, and nearly in terms of power. As a free, moral agent, man has every right to seek his own will; despite his weakness as a flesh and blood human being, limited in time, space, strength, resources, love, and righteousness, he also bears the responsibility of the salvation of the lost. With God in his corner, supporting his desires and purposes rather than God’s, the Arminian can literally accomplish anything. Arminians do not believe that sin has disabled and corrupted man’s heart and as a result, they believe not only that they possess all power to redeem the lost to Christ, but to continue in sanctification (perfectly, some even believe) by their own strength until death. They believe that God loves all men unconditionally, regardless of his attitude toward God, or his refusal to submit to his will or place his trust in Christ. They do not believe that God elects men, like Abraham or Jacob, but that he “elects in general”, generally and not specifically, whomever will respond. God chooses the choosers. Men elect themselves, in other words. Men are not sinners, remember, because none of them are slaves to sin and any can be righteous if he so chooses. God chooses the righteous, not sinners. Arminian theology is the theology of men and not of God. It is not the revelation of God to men, but the best idea that men have, given his best interpretation of scripture, to try to reach out to God. It is not the Gospel. It is not scripture, but an amalgamation of human philosophy and false religion in an attempt to satisfy our desire for God but without the humiliation and desperation that God requires.


From this theology, we get the “prosperity gospel,” Catholicism, ordained homosexuals, “Christian” abortionists, and nearly every other error in the modern church. When men believe that they choose independently of God and that God loves them in spite of their obstinate, unrepentant hearts, they no longer need scripture to guide them. They are free to pick and choose, to add, to dismantle and destroy the Word of God as they desire. They become a guide to themselves. The goal of Arminian theology is as the Serpent described in the Garden: “You will be like God.”

Monday, December 23, 2019

Introduction to God's Love


I have done my best to establish that scripture alone guides us, above and beyond any concern of human reason, that God is sovereign over all of Creation, including our thoughts, intentions, desires, and that man is not only completely impotent regarding any God-ward effort, but depraved and enslaved to sin apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart. If man is to make any progress toward his Creator, the Holy Spirit must recreate his heart and give him life, implant a desire for God and set him free from his sin. Man must be completely reborn by the Spirit before he can seek after God (John 3). This initiative must come from God because man is incapable of it, but the question is, who? We know that “the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7.14). If few find the way to life, and God must lead them because they refuse to even seek it on their own, then God must decide who he leads to him. How does he decide? Who does he choose? Clearly, he does not choose everyone.

We know, however, that God loves the world (John 3.16). God must want everyone to be saved, yet why does he not cause everyone to be saved? If salvation rests in God’s work and not in our own, why is every person not saved? Arminians solve this problem concretely and succinctly—God does not choose; man does. God chooses men who choose him (Wesley). God loves all men but since all men are free to believe or not, men ultimately decide their eternal fate. But we have seen that this is impossible. Given the choice, all men will choose eternal fire. Calvinists have a much more profound problem. God loves everyone but he does not save everyone. Why? John Piper believes God has two separate wills: one will to declare and one will to act. Piper believes that God says, “I love all men but I will allow/ordain/choose many men (that I love) to perish eternally.”[1] Arminians refuse to accept this, for good reason. This notion is the exact opposite of love. Piper tells us that God’s ultimate goal is to magnify his glory[2], just as he allowed his Son to die for our sins, a despicable event that resulted in grace for us and glory for God, but this hardly satisfies. Not that we should seek for satisfaction per se as we pursue theological truth, but at the very least, we should seek to reconcile apparent contradictions.

If men cannot choose to believe but God must give them faith, and God loves everyone but does not save everyone, what options do we have?
  • All men can choose to believe in God. This is clearly denied in scripture.
  • God does not love everyone. So far, we have not established the universality of God’s love. We cannot assume it outright, no matter how well we believe we know scripture. We must diligently investigate every belief, assumption, and philosophy till we know by faith and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we have arrived at spiritual truth.
  • God saves everyone. I will explore this later.
This issue drives perhaps the deepest wedge into Christian theology, yet not in the Arminian camp, but in the Calvinist. Little in Creation can be known with complete certainty, but I feel safe in declaring that all Arminians believe that God loves all men equally and without condition. It is a simple belief requiring little investigation or thought. Christ has said that “God loves the world,” after all. This verse forms the cornerstone of God’s universal love and let no one dare contend with it.



[1] John Piper, Does God desire all to be saved?, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2013).
[2] Ibid, 54.

those loony calvinists


As I’ve said before, Arminians rely primarily on their understanding and perception when forming or supporting theological ideas. Eighteenth century revivalist Charles Finney declared all who questioned human freedom to be insane:
Nobody ever did call in question the freedom of the human will, without justly incurring the charge of insanity. By a necessity of his nature, every moral agent knows himself to be free. He can no more hide this fact from himself, or reason himself out of the conviction of its truth, than he can speculate himself into a disbelief of his own existence…That he is, that he is free, are truths equally well known, and known precisely in the same way, namely, he intuits them.[1]
We are free because we perceive we are free. No other explanation is needed unless you are crazy! Elsewhere he says, “The moral government of God everywhere assumes and implies the liberty of the human will, and the natural ability of men to obey God…The human mind necessarily assumes the freedom of the human will as a first truth.”[2] Notice Finney does not say that scripture declares the freedom of the will—it emphatically does not. We may infer that scripture “assumes and implies” it only because we already assume this. Scripture nowhere states explicitly that men are free. Finney relies not on scripture but on the implication that human freedom is a “first truth,” that is to say, “I am free because I perceive I am.” We do not build doctrine on perception.

Finney delves slightly deeper into this question of depravity. He distinguishes between “physical” and “moral” depravity. Physical depravity regards the body or the constitution. He says, “Physical depravity, being depravity of substance as opposed to the actions of free will, can have no moral character.”[3] It consists of the “nature or [the] constitution.”[4] Finney compares this type of depravity to illness, insanity, or mental retardation.[5] Considering Finney’s legal background, it should surprise no one that these compare directly to the states that exonerate a man in a strictly legal sense. “Moral depravity is the depravity of free will, not of the faculty itself, but of its free action,” he adds.[6] Moral depravity does not mean that the will of men is depraved, but that they make sinful decisions. It is a “depravity of choice…at variance with moral law.”[7]

Finney admits that men are morally depraved but refuses to acknowledge that this depravity lies in their nature, even though he cites scripture that expressly states this.
That men are morally depraved is one of the most notorious facts of human experience, observation and history…The moral depravity of the human race is everywhere assumed and declared in the Bible…The Bible exhibits proof of it in those passages that represent all the unregenerate as possessing some wicked heart of character. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6.5). “This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one even unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead” (Ecclesiastes 9.3). “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17.9).[8]
If the “heart” does not represent man’s nature, then what can it possibly refer to? Finney makes no clear statement on the distinction. He states that sin consists “in obeying the flesh,”[9] but fails to recognize that the flesh is the body, or in any case, at least representative of either the body or the nature. Either way, depravity rests in this entity that Finney calls “the flesh.” If the flesh is not depraved, then why does sin consist in obeying the flesh? Is this flesh not a part of us? This flesh either resides in us or it is us, our nature, so how can Finney say that we are not “physically depraved,” by his definition?

Finney makes two grand declarations regarding the depravity of human nature. If human nature were corrupt, this would make God the author of sin, for “to talk of a sinful nature, or sinful constitution, in the sense of physical sinfulness, is to ascribe sinfulness to the Creator, who is the author of nature.”[10] If human nature were corrupt, then it would have no moral character, and God could not justly judge us for what we are born with. He says, “Physical depravity, whether of body or of mind, can have no moral character in itself, for the plain reason that is involuntary, and in its nature is disease, and not sin.”[11]

Adam was created free, either to obey or disobey God. In his disobedience, his nature became corrupt. He died, as God had promised (Genesis 3.17; Romans 5.12), and all of us inherit his dead, sinful nature. Though we cannot overcome our nature without grace, God judges us in Adam because our representative freely sinned against God (Romans 5.15-19). We cannot charge God with injustice because we are incapable of righteousness. Finney confuses legal concepts with scriptural ones. We do not legally fault the mentally incompetent when they commit crimes, but God will judge every one of us for our sin, whether imbeciles, lunatics, or otherwise. We are slaves to sin, incapable of pleasing God, and dead in sin, and our actions do have moral character. We are always moral agents, either natural or reborn. Before Christ, we are morally sinful. We absolutely are moral agents and our actions have the moral character of sin and only sin. We may do "good" works, but these works do not glorify God because they are not from a heart of faith (Isaiah 64.6; Romans 8.7, 8; 14.23). After we are reborn, we trust in Christ and we begin to have his moral character. Finney’s unwillingness to trust in scripture despite his lack of comprehension does not alter scripture. Finney simultaneously declares the corruption of the flesh and the strength of the constitution without offering any kind of explanation other than to say, if you disagree, you are nuts.

Christ said, “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8.34). Is our flesh enslaved, and our will free? Does Christ make this kind of distinction? How does Paul describe the problem? In Romans 6, Paul says that our body is ruled by sin and we are slaves to sin (6.6). He says that for anyone to be free from sin, he must die (6.7). Sin reigns in our body but we obey its desires (6.12). Sin is our master, but only Christ can set us free as we identify with him in death (6.8-14). Sin does not only rule our flesh—sin rules us. Sin rules our entire person—soul, mind, body—all of it. If sin does not completely rule us, why do we need Christ? Jesus said, “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (John 15.5). Christ must make us a new creation in order for us to trust in him and obey him (2 Corinthians 5.17). How then can any part of us be righteous without him?

Finney believes his understanding of human freedom to be axiomatic. He believes himself so enlightened that to disagree with him is insanity. He cannot possibly be wrong because he directly intuits what he believes. He places faith in his faculties, in his knowledge, in his perception and reason above all else. His logic sits above the revelation of God. Who can argue with this kind of arrogance?

Arminians believe that sinners please God. They believe that either God has enabled all men to please him by faith, or that they never lost their ability to please him in the fall. They also believe that though natural men can believe in God and therefore please him (Hebrews 11.6), they remain sinners, dead in sin, enslaved to sin, and unable to please him (Genesis 6.5; Jeremiah 17.9; John 8.34; Romans 8.7, 8; Ephesians 2.1). This is a plain contradiction.



[1] Finney, 37, emphasis added.
[2] Ibid, 307.
[3] Ibid, 243.
[4] Ibid, 245.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, 243.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, 246-247.
[9] Ibid, 250.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid, 243.

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

establishing free will: attempt mdclxxxix


If the Arminian cannot rely on prevenient grace to enable all men to receive the Gospel, then what does he do? Norman Geisler rejects the Wesleyan tradition and believes that since God created Adam in his image, every man remains able to freely choose to believe in God. He believes this in spite of the abundance of scripture teaching on man’s dead, enslaved, desperately wicked, incapable heart.

While Geisler admits that “fallen human beings are spiritually dead in that they have no spiritual life,” he maintains that “God’s image is still present in them; hence, they’re able to hear his voice and respond to his offer of salvation.”[1] Geisler cites little scripture to support this argument, but simply believes it must be true because it makes sense. If we are not free, then God cannot hold us responsible for our sins.[2] Geisler makes rational, philosophical arguments for human freedom. He says, “Humankind intuitively recognizes freedom as being good… People never march against freedom... Free choice is an undeniable good.”[3] Later he says, “Sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond.”[4]

Speaking scripturally, Geisler says that “God’s image in Adam was effaced by the Fall, but not erased. It was marred but not destroyed. Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is still in human beings. This is why murder and even cursing [those] 'who have been made in God’s likeness' are sins.”[5] Geisler believed, much like Finney and Pelagius, that our sin originates as a choice from some kind of constitutionally neutral position. He says, “Fallen man is ignorant, depraved, and a slave of sin, but all these conditions involve a choice.”[6] In this Geisler speaks correctly, but he does not completely understand what he speaks about. The sinner does choose to deny God and to live in his sin, but he can make no other choice. He has a will, and he chooses of his own accord, uncoerced by anything outside himself. In this sense, he is free, but he is not free to make any positive, righteous choice. He is not free to believe in God.

In his Systematic Theology, Geisler continues
Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually “dead” (Genesis 2.17; cf. Ephesians 2.1) and thus, a sinner because of “[his] sinful nature” (Ephesians 2.3), he was not so completely depraved that it was impossible for him to hear the voice of God or make a free response: “The Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid’” (Genesis 3.9-10). As already noted, God’s image in Adam was effaced but not erased by the fall; it was corrupted (damaged) but not eliminated (annihilated).[7]
Adam made a free choice, but the Calvinist doctrine of depravity never denies the freedom of natural man to respond negatively to God. The natural man can freely disobey God. In this same passage, we read that even after God confronts him, Adam refuses to submit to God and blames him for his own failure: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3.12). Man has complete freedom to defy God, but he is not free to trust in God nor to obey him.

Scripture barely speaks of “the image of God,” and it hardly defines it rigorously enough for us to make any claims on its ability to strengthen the will to trust in God in spite of the inherent corruption of sin. Theologians rely largely on philosophical assumptions that “made in the image of God” denotes such characteristics as reason, morality, emotion, and volition. We may say that the image of God distinguishes us from the animals, but that hardly gives us any detail to establish any kind of “free will” doctrine. If anything, this image distinguishes us from the animals by enabling us to relate to God, but this is precisely what died when Adam sinned—our connection to God. Gentry and Wellum explain the most common traditional interpretation:
The divine image refers to the mental and spiritual qualities that man shares with his Creator. The fact that commentators cannot agree in identifying these qualities makes this approach suspect...The majority of Christians [believe this view.] … This interpretation did not originate with the Christian church but can be traced back to Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher living in the time 30 B.C. to A.D. 45. The traditional view does not rest on a grammatical and historical interpretation of the text; instead, it is based on theological conclusions. It does not account for the fact that “image” normally refers to a physical statue and therefore cannot be exegetically validated as the author’s intended meaning of the first audience’s natural understanding of the text in terms of the ancient Near Eastern cultural and linguistic setting.[8]
Animals reason[9], so does this mean they are created in God’s image? If a person becomes mentally disabled and can no longer reason, is he no longer made in God’s image? Animals care for each other, showing some level of morality and emotion. Obviously they make choices. In what way are we different from animals? This “image” precisely distinguishes us from the beasts, but what exactly is it?

Gentry and Wellum believe that by “the image of God,” scripture describes a representative relationship with God.
The term “image of god” in the culture and language of the ancient Near East in the fifteenth century B.C. would have communicated two main ideas: (1) rulership and (2) sonship. The king is the image of god because he has a relationship to the deity as the son of god and a relationship to the world as ruler for the god… The divine image indicates man’s relationship and spiritual fellowship with God.[10]
We represent God on earth, and in this representation we enjoy a relationship to him. At least we did, until Adam abandoned this relationship to assert his independence from God. If the image of God denotes a relationship to God, then apart from Christ’s redemption, only Christ retains the image of God. Indeed, after Adam’s sin, we read that Adam’s first son was born “according to [Adam’s] image” (Genesis 5.3), and no longer in God’s image. We also read that God forbids murder because man was created in God’s image (Genesis 9.6), but this refers to the value that God places on us, not any inherent righteous ability, long destroyed by Adam’s sin. Paul tells us that Christ bears God’s image (2 Corinthians 4.4; Colossians 1.15), and that we possess this image as God creates it in us (Colossians 3.10). If we can connect any kind of righteousness to this image, we can do so only before the fall, and after redemption. Adam bore God’s image before he sinned, and he remained righteous in relationship to God until he sinned. As Christ bears God’s image, we do only as we are in relationship to God, in Christ. There is nothing in scripture that connects any kind of faith to the marred image of God in the sinner. Regarding Paul’s mention of God’s image, Gentry and Wellum add, “Paul mentions holiness, knowledge, and righteousness, not because one can identify ethical or mental or spiritual qualities as elements of the divine image, but because these terms are covenantal and describe a covenant relationship.”[11] Scripture does not supports Geisler’s assumption that we are sufficiently free from sin to choose to believe in God, much the opposite.



[1] Geisler, 20.
[2] Ibid, 31.
[3] Ibid, 34.
[4] Ibid, 41.
[5] Ibid, 45.
[6] Ibid, 45.
[7] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, (Bloomington: Bethany House, 2011), page 773.
[8] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2015), page 71-72, 86.
[9] Ashley Capps, “Responding to the Claim That Animals Can’t Reason, Don’t Deserve Same Consideration,” Free from Harm. Retrieved from https://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animals-cant-reason-dont-deserve-treatment/, December 29, 2014. Also compare “10 Animals that Use Tools”, Charles Q. Choi, December 14, 2009. https://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html
[10] Gentry and Wellum, 77.
[11] Ibid, 86.

Thursday, December 5, 2019

wesleyan theology is garbage


Arminian theology on sin covers a much wider conceptual range. Some theologians believe that sin corrupts completely but the corruption has been almost completely mitigated for every sinner by Christ’s death. Others believe that man never became completely corrupted and that he has always retained a measure of righteousness through the image of God he was originally created in. Others simply declare that sin does not reside in the heart of man at all, but is only a manifestation of our decisions. The Arminian must avoid admitting to the corruption of sin if he is to uphold man’s volitional freedom, for the ultimate sin is not violence to God, but against man and his ability to determine himself.

To Wesley, the natural man is a “logical abstraction.” There is no such man.[1] Christ’s death provided sufficient grace to overcome the death and slavery of sin. Paul said that “through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Romans 5.18). Great-house and Dunning tell us that this refers to “prevenient grace,” which universally enables all men to freely trust in Christ. Wesley equates spiritual grace and knowledge to the conscience. He says
No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural: It is more properly termed preventing grace. Every man has a greater or less measure of this, which waiteth not for the call of man. Everyone has, sooner or later, good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root, or produce any considerable fruit. Everyone has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which, sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world. And every one, unless he be one of the small number whose conscience is seared as with a hot iron, feels more or less uneasy when he acts contrary to the light of his own conscience. So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath.[2]
This grace of Wesley’s completely renews the dead man. If a man can choose to believe in God, he is no longer a slave to sin. Greathouse and Dunning admit as much. He is no longer a sinner, for a sinner is a slave to sin (John 8.34), dead in sin (Ephesians 2.1), unable to please God (Romans 8.7, 8), and “desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17.9). Wesley’s grace completely regenerates every man. Wesley famously believed that this “prevenient grace” is “free for all, and free in all.”[3] This free, “preventing grace” begins our salvation. It causes “the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him.”[4]

Later Wesleyan theologians detail the effects of the atonement to include this regenerating grace. H. Orton Wiley says, “The grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all men, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.”[5] This benefit extends from Christ’s atonement, citing Wesley’s words, “God is so far reconciled to the world, that he hath given them a new covenant; the plain condition whereof being once fulfilled, ‘there is no more condemnation’ for us, but ‘we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.’”[6] Wiley quotes John Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism, describing the first of “four degrees” of justification, “The first justification engages the sinner’s attention, encourages his hope, and draws his heart by love.” Again, this “first degree” of justification applies to all, according to Wesleyans. Paul tells us in Romans 8.1 that there is “therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Wiley continues, “the Arminians taught that there was a ‘free gift’ of righteousness, unconditionally bestowed upon all men through Christ.”[7] Thomas Summers adds, “If a decree of condemnation has been issued against original sin… likewise a decree of justification has been issued from the same court, whose benefits are unconditionally bestowed through the Second Adam.”[8] Everyone has been redeemed through Christ’s death. Not only did Christ’s atonement grant to every sinner the faith to trust in Christ, but it redeemed him from the penalty of sin, regardless of his faith. Orton continues
The second effect of the free gift was the reversal of the condemnation and the bestowal of a title to eternal life… [Condemnation] was arrested in Christ as regards every individual, and thereby changed into a conditional sentence. Man is not now condemned for the depravity of his own nature…its culpability was removed by the free gift in Christ. Man is condemned solely for his own transgressions.[9]
Later I may tackle the disparity about scripture teaching one atonement for two kinds of sin, universally redeeming all while simultaneously leaving all condemned, but for now I will stay with this application of “preventing grace.” I mainly intend to show that Wesleyan theology teaches that all men have received grace that restores, regenerates, or cleanses them from sin, bringing them to life, opening their eyes, setting them free from sin, and places them in Christ, without any faith on their part.

Wesley encountered this inherent problem in Arminianism: how do we uphold absolute freedom of the will yet stay true to the doctrine of sin? Wesley and later Wesleyan theology solve it in two ways: natural conscience and the atonement. Our conscience draws us to God, and every man has received this grace that draws him to God, “the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of sin.”[10] We receive this grace through Christ’s atonement, universally applied to all unconditionally.

Wesley confuses natural conscience with regenerating grace. The Bible nowhere equates conscience with regeneration or repentance. Men who believe in right and wrong do not necessarily believe in God. This is not because they choose not to. They have no “first wish to please God”; they hate him. They may be moral men, but in no way do they have “the first slight transient conviction of sin,” as from a cosmic Judge. Christ is the light of the world in that he lived God’s commands for us to observe. In scripture, light is knowledge. Christ came to “enlighten every man” by convicting men of their sin (John 3.20; 16.8-9). In John 1, though John says “Christ enlightens every man,” he also says “the world did not know him” (John 1.9, 10). The world had the light of Christ, but they still did not believe in Christ. Only those who received Christ became sons of God, and this only because they were born of the will of God (1.13). Light does not equal grace, faith, or repentance. In John 3, Christ speaks of the Light, not as an internal influence drawing men to him, but as an external conviction, exposing their evil deeds. The Light brings judgment.
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.[11]
This Light of Christ convicts us of sin, and those who are born of God (John 1.13) come to the Light and practice the truth.

Paul speaks of the natural light of conscience in Romans 1.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.[12]
God reveals himself through Creation and through the moral law (Psalm 19). In every society, we see God’s nature revealed through human relationships that can only exist through God’s moral law:
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.[13]
The Law lies within us as our conscience and reveals God’s will, but it does not give us a desire to love, please, or trust in God. The Law incites the rebellion that lies within us, in fact. Paul tells us, much as Christ’s light convicts us of sin, that the Law exposes our sin:
I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind.[14]
Conscience convicts us of sin, and unless God gives us his life, not light, which we all have, we remain condemned in this sin.

Only Christ releases believers from condemnation. Faith trusts in Christ and applies the benefits of Christ’s death. Paul only speaks of the spiritual benefits of salvation for those who are “in Christ,” and only believers in Christ live “in Christ.” Justification that removes the condemnation results from faith; it is not the source of faith. Wesley believed that God provided this justification to all men. In “On the Fall of Man,” he says, “God hath also, through the intercession of his Son, given us his Holy Spirit, to renew us both ‘in knowledge,’ in his natural image; opening the eyes of our understanding , and enlightening us with all such knowledge as is requisite to our pleasing God.”[15] Later he describes this grace as “an universal remedy for an universal evil,” applying Romans 5.18 to the discussion:
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Wesley applies this verse too broadly. Paul restricted this justification to those who trust in God through faith, but Wesley applies it to all as this “preventing grace” that enables all men to believe in God. Wesley elsewhere applies Romans 8.32 to the world at large:
“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” How freely does God love the world! While we were yet sinners, “Christ dies 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! The grace of God, whence cometh our salvation, is free in all, and free for all.[16]
Paul does not speak of all men, but only of believers. All the benefits of Romans 8 apply only to those who trust in Christ. This verse follows the Great Chain of Redemption, where Paul traces God’s work of foreknowledge, to election, to calling, to justification, and finally to glorification. In no way does this apply to all men, but exclusively to believers.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Wesley teaches universalism, that everyone will be saved regardless of their faith in Christ.

What does scripture say of those who are “in Christ Jesus”?
We are alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6.11
We have eternal life. 6.23
We have no condemnation. 8.1
We are free from the law of sin and death. 8.2
We can never be separated from God. 8.39
We are one body. 12.5
We are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 1.2
We have wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. 1.30
We have brotherly love. 16.24
We are new creations. 2 Corinthians 5.17
Etc., etc., etc.

To apply even a single benefit of the atonement to all men without regard to the humility that faith in Christ requires, completely disregards Christ’s work and sinless life, openly mocks his death on the Cross, and destroys divine justice. It places saint and sinner alike in the family of God. It places the harlot of Revelation on equal status with the holy bride of Christ, to the point that God loves both equally, as if he were some indiscriminating adulterer. How does a theologian proceed from this travesty?



[1] William M. Greathouse and H. Ray Dunning, An Introduction to Wesleyan Theology, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1989), page 72.
[2] John Wesley, “On Working Our Own Salvation,” III.4.
[3] Wesley, “Free Grace,” 2.
[4] Wesley, “Working,” II.1.
[5] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology: Volume II, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1952), page 129.
[6] Quoted in Wiley, 129. From Wesley, “Justification by Faith,” I.9.
[7] Wiley, 132.
[8] Thomas Summers, Systematic Theology: Complete Body of Wesleyan Arminian Divinity, (Nashville: Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888), page 41.
[9] Wiley, 135.
[10] Wesley, “Working,” II.1.
[11] John 3.19-21.
[12] Romans 1.18-21.
[13] Exodus 20.12-17.
[14] Romans 6.7, 8.
[15] Wesley, “On the Fall of Man,” II.8.
[16] Wesley, “Free Grace,” Advertisement.

Goat Farmers: Introduction

  Introduction I am not ashamed of the Gospel. [1] The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias explains the motivation that led him to write...