Blog
March 5, 2008
Some good blogging here. Wesley seems to have stirred some pots which is good. Like many evangelicals, I both find Wesley very evocative and yet, I am not completely satisfied. His account of the wrestling with God seems comparatively easy for those of us who have doubted whether we had any faith or not or whether we had any worthiness. Even when I have wondered whether God existed, I have been sure that God’s amazing grace was still present, and I have never been able to find the marks of sanctification in my own soul. I have to find faith, somehow, “fresh every morning.” Even the deepest experiences that I have had could be little more bad beef or my own desire to have those experiences. Is grace then irresistible? Yes and No. No, in that anyone with grace has resisted it and perhaps continues to resist it; yes, in that finally in the divine human wrestling match, God emerges as the Victor. I know that many will reject faith, but I do not know whether any will ultimately resist the madcap grace that is in Christ. Perhaps, as Origen said, even Satan must ultimately be counted among those for whom Christ died.
I love Wesley’ s speculations on what God has in store for the natural order. Paul was right when he noted that the whole world groans in travail, and anyone who has watched the drama of cat with a mouse or a pack of dogs after game knows that there is more cruelty in things than even the necessity of “eat or be eaten” would imply. No one that Isaiah believed that until the lion and the lamb were able to live in a peaceable kingdom that there would be no peace for humankind. More is in store for our world than we can even dream
Sandy Lucas
Blog #4
It’s interesting to see how preaching has changed over the centuries. If I were at a revival, listening to Wesley preach, I’m not sure I could keep attentive. The sermons are theologically dense. It’s before the era of illustrations from human existence or personal experience, let alone historical context or sitz em Liben. It’s amazing how much mileage Wesley gets out of a one-sentence Scripture passage. You can see why a sermon was preached in many locations, and not just once, given the amount of time and labor that went into its construction. (I came across an interesting quote by a U.S. Methodist preacher – I don’t have the source at the moment – who was astounded when he was assigned to a permanent pulpit rather than a traveling ministry. He couldn’t figure out how he would come up with a sermon every Sunday.) That is probably true. No one has a good message every week,
The sermon I liked best was “Free Grace.” Having argued with my Presbyterian Sunday School teacher about predestination – and just not getting it no matter how many different ways it was explained – I wish I had had Wesley’s sermon on the illogic and absurdity of predestination. Of course, I would not have understood it but even as a child, it didn’t make sense that a God of Love would eternally preordain and condemn individuals to hell, eons before their birth. I didn’t want any part of a God like that.
Wesley says it much better. “[Predestination] represents the most Holy God as worse than the devil; as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust.” (p. 57) He refutes all Scripture passages presented as supporting predestination as false, stating that any interpretation that makes God’s love to be conditional or preordained is wrong. “Let it mean what it will,” he proclaims, “it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No Scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works. That is, whatever it prove beside, no Scripture can prove predestination.” (p. 58)
I like Wesley arguments that predestination overthrows all of Christian revelation and that it makes preaching null and void. What’s the point of saving souls through preaching, he asks, if it’s all a done deal? If they are saved, they don’t need it; if they’re condemned from all eternity, no amount of preaching is going to change that. “In either case, our preaching is vain, as your hearing is also vain,” he states. (p.52)
Wesley also points out that this doctrine tends to “destroy several branches of holiness.” (p. 52) Saved or unsaved – and how does one know which category you are in – one loses one’s “zeal for good works” (p. 54). What is the point of providing for one’s temporal needs, he asks, to those “who are just dropping into eternal fire”? (p. 54) Interestingly, since grace does not depend on good works – except for us Catholics – here the concern is not the salvation of the do-gooder but of the recipients, if I understand Wesley’s argument correctly. Wesley was certain that people acted always from a more or less rational motive that was held in the understanding Ultimately, for Wesley, it comes down to the Biblical injunction of “choosing life or death.” There’s volition and participation in God’s grace. We’re not all puppets on a string. Perhaps. But do any of us ever commit a truly free act that is conditioned by our own past and our own environment. My own motives are a murky swamp of things: my parent’s teaching, my own theology, my own phobias and fears, my wrestling with the great dark, that I am never sure when I am acting or when I am reacting. Was that experience of high religious excitement a gift from God or the deluded experience of a sick mind, was it Christ or bad beef? Did I really accept Christ or was that only the social conformity of a teen-ager at church camp under the spell of a skilled youth pastor? I find that I can believe in God, even when I do not believe in God, easier than I can believe in the purity of my will or my capacity to find assurance in its action. More of John Newton in my bones than John Wesley I guess.
Amanda Wagner
Wesley’s Sermons
I found John Wesley’s sermon on free grace to be absolutely fascinating, particularly his theories on the assurance of salvation. He believes that it is utterly foolish to stand blindly in the belief that one is part of the elect and therefore will be saved. Instead, Wesley implores all people to repent and be saved, regardless of what they believe about predestination.
Though there were no studies on assurance of salvation, Wesley made the claim that most of those who believed themselves to be part of the elect had doubts about their salvation at one point or another. It certainly would be a worry if one had the assurance that they either were part of the elect or they weren’t, and there was nothing one could do about it. According to Wesley, doubts would be a very natural response to the possibility of eternal damnation.
On the contrary, Wesley asserted that those who believed in salvation as a product of God’s free grace and love were quite unlikely to ever doubt their own salvation. Though I am sure that some of these believers doubted their salvation at one time or another, I wonder if Wesley’s assertions have some basis in truth. I wonder if those who believe in predestination are more likely to have doubts about their salvation than others. I wonder too if Wesley ever had doubts about his own salvation. That is a very interesting question. Wesley taught his followers that they could have assurance of their salvation because they knew that they trusted Christ, but he also believed in backsliding and even in the possibility of apostasy. For those of us who have had many dark nights with religious questions, Wesley seems too easy. After all, it is more often the self that is doubted than God and God’s grace.
If God is a God of love, as Wesley believed the Bible clearly stated, then God’s grace is a gift given to all people. All have the ability to repent and be forgiven. Wesley’s God of love makes a strong argument against the “blasphemy” of predestination. For him, a God who did not want every person to be saved was completely illogical. This was the kind of hope that his followers so desperately wanted and needed to hear.
Kathleen M.
Batchelder
CH 1502
Online Seminary—Class #5
An
interesting response. Thank-you.
John Wesley’s collected sermons
allow us the privilege of seeing into this great theologian’s mind, and one
thing that fascinates me about the collection is the sixty year span (from 1730
to 1790) of Wesley’s beliefs. We demand
that today’s politicians remain steadfast in their beliefs and their voting
patterns. That is, however, denying the
possibility of positive change and/or growth of thought. It will be interesting to read Wesley’s
sermons as we note changes in conditions of the world around him, in the
politics and situations of the church, and of his own beliefs. Change over sixty years seems practically
inevitable, and it is awesome enough to live the changes in our own lives;
however, to see Wesley’s sermons in chronological order almost demands
examination of his evolutionary thoughts.
Considering his enormous impact on Protestant history, I would like to
have had an opportunity at the end of Wesley’s life to ask him several
questions.
Our text of fifty sermons by John
Wesley has a helpful Preface. The quote
in this week’s reading which perhaps strikes me most is on page 9 when Wesley
is quoted as saying, “My tongue is a devoted thing.” If I am not impressed by a single one of his
sermons, I still want to sit at his feet and hear him talk about having a
tongue that is a “devoted thing.” My own
tongue gets me into trouble daily, and I would love to hear Wesley’s rationale
for writing that his tongue is “devoted.” Wesley was a passionate preacher who often spoke
two or three times a day. He believed in
oral communication as the primary way of spreading the Gospel, although he used
print more effectively than any other post Reformation leader.
As a newcomer to primary texts in
church history, I am grateful for Wesley’s obvious organization patterns for
his sermons. The Preface notes that
punctuation and spelling have been changed; however, I wonder if the outline
and paragraph designations are Wesley’s own inclusions. Readers (when these sermons appeared in print)
and hearers (when the sermons were preached) surely must have appreciated
Wesley’s clear presentation style. In
“The Image of God,” he uses an organized introduction followed by a carefully
outlined order of points. In “Free
Grace,” Wesley numbers the paragraphs to help readers/hearers locate specific
points for later questions/discussions/arguments. Often in prose literature texts, paragraphs
are numbered (similar
to line numbers in poetry) to facilitate discussion, so it is possible that
editors have added Wesley’s numbers.
Either way, I appreciate the aids for reading/anticipating. Wesley was an organizer, and these sermons
reflect his tendency to present things in a very rigorous logical
form. His friend, at least for a season
George Whitefield, was more relaxed about logical order and preached for emotional effect/
While “The Image of God” is a fairly
non-controversial discussion of man’s inheritance of, then loss of, and
hopefully recovery of the likeness of God, Wesley’s sermon “Free Grace” is a
fiery argument against and condemnation of the belief of predestination. “The Image of God” was preached in 1730 as
his “first ‘university sermon’” (page 13) which may partly explain its gentler
tone. However, by “Free Grace” in 1739,
Wesley had found a rather strident voice.
There is no beating around the bush in this one. As a girl growing up and attending Presbyterian
youth events, I enjoyed debates about predestination. I could understand valid points on both sides
of the subject. If only Wesley could have joined our conversation!! Alas, he was in many such conversations and
they ruined his relationships with other evangelicals, including Toplady, John Newton, and, above all, George
Whitefield.
Wesley states his beliefs against
predestination by the eleventh paragraph, “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” (page 52). From paragraph 20 through 22, Wesley pulls
out “proof texts” to support his denial of predestination. He seems to temper his mounting argument in
paragraph 23 with reason, saying that some texts contradict others. However, he is just building up to his climax
in paragraphs 24 and 25; there Wesley says that belief in predestination
presupposes that Jesus and God are hypocritical IF they declare that all can be
saved while they only save the elect.
Wesley is going for the jugular!!!
In paragraph 25 (page 57) Wesley writes, “Such
blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian tingle.”
John Wesley was 36 years old when he
wrote this sermon. He was thoroughly
convinced of his beliefs when he wrote “Free Grace” as a statement against
predestination. It is a belief which
still puzzles Christians. If we believe
that God is active in our lives, where do we feel a line of His control/plan? If we believe that we have free will, where
do we see His activity? Big questions
still. However, John Wesley holds firm
and “draws the line in the sand” on his denial of predestination when he
writes, “This is the blasphemy clearly contained in ‘the horrible decree’ of
predestination. And here I fix my foot”
(page 57).
I look forward to reading more of
Wesley’s sermons and trying to find patterns of steadfastness and of change in
his beliefs. (I hope my own circuitous
thoughts are never published because I tremble to think of someone trying to
find any patterns or significant paths.
I do, however, journal in order to watch and learn from my own
meanderings—I am convinced that we learn and discern by writing our thoughts.)
Gary Cyr
CH1502
Wesley’s Sermons
3/06/08
YouOne of the marks of Wesley’s
work was his passionate belief in the Word preached as the supreme means of
grace. Through preaching the human heart
was prepared for the reception of grace and enabled to say yes to God’s work in
Christ. But, Wesley was also a consummate teacher who
used his sermons, especially in their printed form, for the education of his
preachers. His careful logic reflected
the dual use of the material.
In reading the selections for this unit two things stand out in my mind: a reasoned approach to church and scripture, and the universal effect of grace. Wesley’s words convey a sense of hope that what God has done for us is not beyond humankind’s knowledge and awareness. Grace is constantly at work internally drawing us closer to a right and just relationship with God and one another. Several aspects of what I read brings to my mind the work of the early Church Fathers, especially Origen and Irenaeus and even Augustine.
What stands out the most for me is Wesley’s belief in the power of a sermon. Preaching, in his view and my opinion from reading his work, becomes sacramental…a vital and integral aspect of worship. It is a means of grace that works in and through our lives, turning us towards God. His theology suggests that what God has done for us in Christ is not obtainable through our own efforts of work, but only through grace that works internally. It seems very Augustinian. The notion of being born of the spirit precedes being born of water is an internal work of the Spirit that draws us towards Baptism. One may have the outward sign without having the inward conversion, so Wesley argues well. Justification is what God has done for us, while sanctification is the internal work of the Spirit drawing us towards God—a process of being made holy. The process of being made holy carries the idea of regeneration that Irenaeus postulated. That we are being remade in God’s perfect and holy image as it was before Adam’s sin. Consequently, given his belief in inward conversion and the power of the sermon, is comes as no surprise that he would argue against ‘predestination’ or the ‘ election’ of a few at the expense of the many. God’s grace is not limited by such constraints. It is very ‘catholic’ in its truest sense. You are right to highlight the theme of holiness and to note that it goes back to the ancient Greek fathers. Wesley believed that we were all on the road to holiness and that holiness was possible for everyone.
Universal or catholic faith is not dogmatic in Wesley’s writing, but a conversion of the human spirit towards its Creator. You are right, but be careful. In his sermon, he gives several definitions of Catholic faith/ We live in slavery to the devil until we open our hearts and mind to the grace of God and the work God has done for us. The idea carries the notion of Origen’s ransom theory of atonement where humanity is held captive to the Devil until a proper ransom is made, the work of Jesus on the cross. Wesley’s belief in a new creation also carries with it hints of Origen’s universal salvation where everything old is made new again, not just for the few elect, but for all of God’s work in creation.
Wesley’s word choice and logic give evidence to the power of his preaching. As an itinerant preacher it is no surprise that he would appeal to the common folk as well as the theologically astute. His use of scripture and reason are evident in these writings and I wonder how it would feel to hear them and not just read them.
CH 1502
Christian Movement
Glenn Miller
March 4, 2008
Cathie Kimball
John Wesley’s Sermons
John Wesley was a prolific sermon writer. The selections read for this week is an interesting peek into Wesley’s theology and span most of his adult life, between 1730 and 1785. In particular I was interested in the contrast between Free Grace, written in 1739, and The New Birth, written in 1760.
Free Grace was written at the height of the English Evangelical movement and signals a parting of the ways between John Wesley and George Whitefield over the issue of predestination. It is a compelling and well written sermon laying out Wesley’s argument against the principle of predestination. His argument has seven major points: that grace is freely given, that predestination tends to destroy holiness, that it destroys the comfort of religion and happiness of Christianity, it destroys our zeal for good works, it tends to overthrow the entire Christian revelation, it makes the revelation contradict itself, and it is blasphemous. He carefully lays out the argument, building his case. He makes good and frequent use of scripture to refute predestination. “[Grace] does not depend on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done or anything he is…Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it.”
The New Birth was written to distinguish between baptism and the principle from John 3:7 of being born again into Christ. Wesley answers three questions here; why must we be born again? How must we be born and again? And to what ends is it necessary that we be born again? Here his dissertation is again built one premise at a time and the argument is carefully crafted. The distinction he makes between baptism as an outward act symbolizing an inward grace, and the more conscious decision of an adult to follow a particular path is clear. “…baptism is not the new birth…” and the two do not necessarily happen together. He goes on to say that a flagrant sinner is in defiance of his baptism and that person needs to be born again. This is reminiscent of the early argument that one could not sin after one was baptized, leading people to choose to be baptized very late in life.
These two pieces are in some tension, one with the other. On the one hand he argues compellingly against predestination, and for the concept of free will, as well as the grace of God brought forth for all men. In The New Birth he outlines an equally clear argument that a particular thing is required of a Christian to truly be a Christian – that a person who believes, who practices his faith carefully and with a right heart may yet be denied eternal life over a technicality. “Without this nothing will do any good to your poor sinful polluted soul….Go to church twice a day, go to the Lord’s table every week, say ever so many prayers in private; hear ever so many sermons, good sermons, excellent sermons, the best that ever were preached, read ever so many good books – still you must be born again.”
It
is not clear to me how or if Wesley distinguishes between new birth and
repentance. In rereading the second
piece, I began to see his call to be toward repentance as opposed to a single
event, one of ‘being born again’, or perhaps continually being reborn. If he means a more fluid process, one of
continually turning back to God, then that is a different story. He has already shown compassion for sinners,
offering the idea that no sin is so great that one cannot be born again. It is also true that the most pious of people
may still not truly get it. It would
seem odd to me for Wesley to be so affirming of God’s grace, freely given for
all people, and then to deny the best of that grace over a technicality.
Fro Wesley,
being born again was not a technically, it was assuming the full burden of
faith, both in terms of trust in God and in terms of
moving towards perfection. In many ways,
he associated the new birth with the reception of the Holy Spirit than made
humankind into new creatures in Christ. On the other hand, Wesley had a very high view of
Christian practices, including communion, that was not
always characteristic of other ministers who agreed with him that the central
act of faith was a sensible experience of God’s presence in the soul. There was in Wesley, however, a struggle
between the ritualism of the church with its confidence that a good life would
be sufficient and its own passionate evangelicalism. God had to be present with the believer, and
he did not feel that this was true of the nominal faith that he saw round about
him.
F
Michael Kasevich
March 6,2008
John Wesley
John Wesley’s Sermons
Reading someone else’s sermons feels a little strange to me at first. They are sermons and should be read aloud. I wish I was there to see and to hear Wesley give these sermons. To watch his body language would have given better insight of the meaning of the sermons also.
This week I would like to comment on his sermon “Free Grace.” Wesley speaks of predestination and how it is misunderstood the church but clear in the gospel. Predestination is a concept, which involves the relationship between God and creation. Predestination is different from other ideas about determinism and free will. John Calvin believed in predestination. He believed that before creation, “God determined the fate of the universe throughout all of time and space.”
By thinking this way we leave out our own free will that God has so graciously given to all human kind. Wesley uses the act of defiance in the Garden of Eden through the Adam and Eve story. He asks if God preordained or predestined the new humans to sin and reject the “Word of God “in the Garden.
I can see both sides of this debate. If Adam and Eve stayed away from the tree of life, and did not sin, where would we be today? Would there be a need for Jesus to come and set us free from our sin? We do not know. Humans may have sinned some other way. Calvin talks a lot about Christ being in the garden and that he was predestined to be our savior from the every beginning. Is this predestination? I am not sure where to find the reference in Calvin. Generally, Calvin, like Luther, believed in predestination, but he, unlike some later reformed thinkers, did not find it under every rock and pebble of scripture. Rather, the election first of Abraham, then of Israel, and finally of God’s new people in the church was God’s way of doing things. God had acted to save humanity in an almighty and powerful way.
Wesley speaks of the Pharaoh and his heart. How can we judge what God
had done to keep His chosen people , the nation of
I have learned that some Christians emphasize God's responsibility too
much that they lose sight of the need for their lives to be transformed and changed by being
active in working with others. This reminds me of James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is
also dead. Yet, many Christian activist, including the Puritans, have taken the opposite
pathway.
At the end of the sermon ( Pp 59), I really enjoyed how Wesley took scripture and wrote a paragraph summing up his beliefs. It is full of his theology brought alive through scripture. It is great. I used this method in a funeral last Sunday.
Then Wesley’s next statement after a paragraph of scripture is “O hear ye this, ye that forgot God!” Ye cannot charge your death upon him.” This was a warning about continuing in sin and the “death” was not physical but eternal. By rejecting the claims of Christ, Wesley was arguing people were assuring their own damnation. They knew what they had to do, but they refused to do it. How many times do we hear, “It was God’s will,” when someone passes away. If that was a true statement than the person who said it was a predestinationalist (spelling) and not a person who believed in fee will and grace.
I do not think God’s will is for someone to die. God is a God of love
and kindness. It I sour own free will that takes many
lives.
CH 1502 Phyllis Merritt
Christian Movement II
Glenn Miller
for the week of
Wesley: Sermons
Sounds like you enjoyed these sermons. Wesley was an interesting preacher and theologian who had both a practical and a speculative bent to his work. I love the speculations about what the new heaven and the new earth will be like.
I had not read any of Wesley’s sermons, so this week’s reading was in uncharted territory for me. One of the first things I thought about after I read our homework was the book I am assigned to read for Introduction to Preaching this week, Preaching Without Notes by Joseph M. Webb. While I have not yet finished the Webb book, it made me think about our assignment for Christian Movement II…what if John Wesley preached without notes? What if we just had notes or outlines of his thoughts for these sermons? Wesley actually preached many of his sermons without notes and many times the sermons that we have were revised by him for the press and for the instruction of his preachers. I realize I am combining not only two periods of historical practice about preaching, but the procedure followed by two different preachers when I ask these questions, but I ask them just the same. His language style and pattern does not always seem easy to the twenty-first century ear, and that causes me to ask another question…I wonder what it would have been like to hear these sermons? I remember from my class in the history of the English language that one of the effects of popular education, especially in America, was the development of a popular style that greatly simplified the grammatical and syntaxical possibilities of the language. I also know from readings in anthropology that primitive languages are often more grammatical complex than later languages and one of the effects of the spread of a language is a decline in nuance. Present day American English is a very attenuated language. People in an earlier day had a much sharper ear and eye for grammatical nuance. Since I really enjoyed reading Wesley’s sermons, I am very glad that he wrote them out.
The introductory comments at the beginning of each sermon were helpful. They “set the stage” so to speak, and gave insight to the time(s) and place(s) of the sermons. I liked knowing if the sermon was one that had been preached or one that had been written but not preached (more like an essay). We discover that Wesley’s treatise on baptism owed much to his father’s earlier work, but he did not acknowledge that fact. (335) Was that common practice? Was it intentional?
In that same introduction, I had difficulty with the passage about baptismal regeneration, conversion, and the problem of regeneration in relation both to justification and sanctification. I think I understood what Wesley’s points were—that baptism and rebirth are not the same (one is an outward work, the other is an internal one (342); that baptism and rebirth do not always occur at the same time (342); and that rebirth is the beginning, the first step, toward our sanctification. (343) After I read the sermon, I re-read the introduction, and I must admit that I still do not understand the regeneration discussion.
Some sections in “The New Creation” were difficult for me also. I caught the reference to “heavens” in Genesis, but I can’t remember reading about the apostle Paul and the third heaven. This is one of the most difficult passages in St. Paul. Was he the one caught up in the Third heaven and just did not want to refer to himself directly or was it someone else. I checked an Internet concordance, (http//bible.crosswalk.com) and was pointed to II Corinthians 12:2. Wesley’s discussion on page 495 ties in with the commentary at that site.
The next passage that I questioned was on page 497…that there will be no more need of the sea. I checked Revelations 21:1, and sure enough, the sea will be no more. The study notes in my New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV footnote “the sea” as being “the primeval force of turbulence and unrest.” While I know that the forces of the sea are strong, I have also found the sea and the land around can be calm, pleasurable, and a source of comfort. The people of Israel, being inland dwellers, distrusted the seas and the coast and only rarely did the Kingdom include the coastal regions. Like many landed people, the seas were seen as mysterious and dark and as the source of much that was unclean.
Both of these sections make me understand that I have much to learn. I bring my human enjoyment of the starry sky above my town and of the shore at the foot of my lawn to my reading of this sermon. It is hard for me to imagine a world without them.
I think that “Free Grace” is a sermon I will read again and again because every time I turn around, I get in a muddle about predestination. Wesley spoke to me on page 51 §6 when he spoke about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Did Pharaoh have a choice? Did Judas have a choice?
I liked reading the selection of Wesley sermons. I could read entire paragraphs especially in “The Image of God” and “The One Thing Needful” and think, “Yes. I agree with that.” Without a doubt, Wesley would bring me out of my comfort zone…almost as if he said, “OK, Phyllis, so what about this?” I am left with the “so what about this.” Questions, questions!