I grew up thinking that John Wesley was one of the progenitors of revival during the Great Awakening. Later, I came to see that Wesely wasn’t all he was proposed to be by pro-Wesleyans, but still appreciated his pursuit of God and his humble chracter. But as I read this second volume of Arnold Dallimore’s Whitefield, I am beginning to wonder about Mr. Wesley. Now I know that Wesley apologists will say that Dallimire contorts Welsey’s legacy completely. But this is exactly what has happened to the reputation of George Whitefield through the last few centuries. I would say many have heard of Wesley in the Christian church both few have heard the name of Whitefield. But I wonder how many have actually read anything by Wesley in the first place.

Ironically, in a sermon preached by John Wesley entitled, “Free Grace,” he is the most ungracious of all. Welsey writes:

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 proved this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, “What is its true meaning then?” If I say, ” I know not,” you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will, 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.

Wow, those who believe in predestination believe that God is worse than the devil? No Scripture can prove predestination? How about Ephesians 1:3-5:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.

How about Romans 8:28-29:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

And there are many more texts that go on to prove that election and predestination are not imaginary creations of Calvin. Here are a few of Wesley’s main points concerning God’s free grace:

1. It is free in all to whom it is given.
2. The doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God.
3. Predestination destroys the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity.
4. This uncomfortable doctrine also destroys our zeal for good works.
5. Furthermore, the doctrine of predestination has a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation.
6. And at the same time, makes that Revelation contradict itself.
7. Predestination is a doctrine full of blasphemy.

Here is a summary Whitefield’s answers in his reply to Wesley:

1. How can Wesley say election makes preaching to be in vain. Preaching is God’s appointed means to bring the Gospel to the elect. Also, no one knows who the elect is so to not preach the Gospel to all is to be completely disobedient to the call of God and in fact, to taking the place of God Himself.

2. Wesley says election destroys holiness which is the end of God’s ordinances. But the striving of holiness is never out of a work but out of “love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell.” Holiness is the mark of election. Whitefield adds: “But does not dear Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God, who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender- hearted, kind, of a catholic spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And why? because they know God saved themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those who now seem to be the most abandoned.”

3. Wesley writes that election destroys happiness and comfort found in Christianity. But Whitefield quotes the 17th article in saying, “The godly consideration of predestination, and election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing their minds to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God.” He adds: “It has a natural tendency to rouse the soul out of its carnal security. And therefore many carnal men cry out against it. Whereas universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul in its lethargic sleepy condition, and therefore so many natural men admire and applaud it.”

4. Wesley writes: “”How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings?” Whitefield responds: “But who ever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings? Do not they who believe God’s dooming men to everlasting burnings, also believe, that God looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the decree which ordained the punishment first regarded the crime by which it was deserved?” The fact is that no one without preceding fault will facer judgment. But sinners will be justly judged. In this case then, Wesley is sounding the universal atonement bell.

5. Wesley writes: “This doctrine has a direct manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian religion. For,” say you, “supposing that eternal, unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian revelation were not in being.” Whitefield responds: “How then has the doctrine of election a direct tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation? Who ever thought that God’s declaration to Noah, that seed-time and harvest should never cease, could afford an argument for the neglect of plowing or sowing? Or that the unchangeable purpose of God, that harvest should not fail, rendered the heat of the sun, or the influence of the heavenly bodies unnecessary to produce it? No more does God’s absolute purpose of saving his chosen preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through which he has determined the decree shall take effect. Nor will the right understanding, or the reverent belief of God’s decree, ever allow or suffer a Christian in any case to separate the means from the end, or the end from the means.” Christians do not give up fighting the fight of faith because of election any more than Noah would stop planting because he knows God makes plants grow. A true understanding of faith is to live with all of one’s might while he lives because of God’s gracious mercy in election. To think otherwise is to rid oneself of the biblical view of election, which is nothing more than fatalism.

There is so much more that Whitefield writes in response to Wesley. But while Wesley’s sermon is angry, vicious, and littered with references to the devil for any one who holds to election, Whitefield’s response is gracious and honoring to John Wesley (despite his reference to a personal conversation regarding the lots that GW apologized to JW). And yet, Whitefield has been viewed historically as the ungracious one. It really is amazing how history can be revisionist history. All one needs to do is to read Wesley’s sermon and then Whitefield’s response to see which one is more gracious, humble, and biblically sound to see that Wesleyan historical revisionism continues today.