Wesley and Arminius are the same
independently and almost Calvinist but importantly, not Source: W. S. Gunter, John Wesley, A
Faithful Representative of Jacobus Arminius. 2000, PDF online. ---W. Gunter wrote his article in 2000 on
Wesley and compared him to Arminius and the Calvinists. --- Like Arminius
himself, Wesley believed that his soteriology was only a ‘hair’s breadth’
separated from Calvin; but it is a critically important breadth. Gunter
concluded. ---At
the second Annual Conference of his preachers in London in 1745, it was
declared that the “truth of the gospel lies very near Calvinism,” indeed,
“within a hair’s breadth.” In the context of the debate in 1770 he would
declare: “We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.” This was found by Gunter. ---Gunter believes that when Wesley
preaches the doctrines of original sin, vicarious atonement and salvation by
faith, he is preaching like a Calvinist – albeit one who does not accept the
doctrines of the decrees of Predestination. ---There are 200 years between Jacobus
Arminius and John Wesley. Gunter could not see direct dependence of Wesley on
Arminius. ---There are here and there a case of
something showing up but it is scanty. ---To depend on another earlier scholar
when you are a Calvinist and to deviate in the same gravity of the earlier one,
you should find more evidence of dependency. ---So scholars are hesitant to call Wesleyanism
as Arminianism. ---They came to similar conclusions
studying independently and their criticism of Calvinism appears very equal. But
to say they are identical is not correct. --- W. Gunter pointed out just like Hans
LaRondelle said in his book Perfection
about Wesley and his idea of Original Sin, that Wesley is different than the
Reformers in that he does not think the perfect Christian is bothered by
original sin because he does not consider it sin any longer because it is
annihilated. ---So Wesley’s perfect saints do not need
a Mediator any longer for original sin and actual sins because there are no
longer of these, they need it for physical infirmities and shortcomings which
is according to his reading of the Bible, not really sin (LaRondelle page 322
at footnotes 436-438 and intext). ---Gunter said that Wesley rarely passed
up the opportunity to affirm the universal problem of sinfulness. He considered
any denial of this reality to be both contrary to general experience and a
rejection of essential Christian teachings. --- Like Arminius,
Wesley often delineated the character of depravity, which he often called
Inbeing Sin, to be the result of privatio, our being separated through
disobedience from God and deprived of intimate fellowship with the Creator. ---Gunter found that “Wesley’s concern in
dealing with the concept of depravity or Inbeing Sin was to search out and
define the source of our actual sins, which he referred to as voluntary and
involuntary sins.” ---He said that Wesley, “Following I John
2:16, Wesley views these as flowing from the desires of the flesh, the desires
of the eye, and the pride of life.” ---Gunter further showed that “The
relation between Inbeing Sin and actual sins is expressed also by a threefold
division: sinful tempers, sinful words, and sinful acts by Wesley.” ---As far as the implications of Sin is
concerned with Arminius who died in 1608 and John Wesley who lived in the 1750’s,
Gunter found that “In Arminius we do not find the implications of Sin spelled
out in these rather practical ways, but we did note that he emphasized how the
human affections are distorted, implying a relational view of sin rather than
an abstract, substantial, or metaphysical one. ---So as far as Arminius view of Salvation
or Soteriology is concerned, says Gunter, Arminius described “God’s saving
grace as also being relational in its essence and application: “...oock so
verre dat die wedergheborene mensche selfs, sonder dese voorgaende ende
opweckende, volghende, ende medewerckende ghenade, noch het goede dencken,
willen of doen can, noch oock eenighe tentatie ten quade wederstaen.” Translated:
“Also as far as the converted human self, without these pre-existing and
quickened, following, and cooperative grace, not thinking good, wanted or able
to do, also cannot resist any tendency to evil”. This is precisely the emphasis that we
encounter in Wesley. Listen to Hans LaRondelle’s words on the
last page of his Perfection and his conclusion: “The most impressive truth of
Biblical perfection is that it does not concentrate on man’s nature in the
abstract but on man’s perfect relationship with God and his fellowman here, now
as well as in the future” (LaRondelle, Perfection, page 327). ---Can you see the word relationship that
link Arminius, Wesley and LaRondelle? ---But, LaRondelle differ with Wesley that
original sin will not be removed until the Second Coming (LaRondelle, Perfection page 320 footnote 430). ---But, Wesley differed with the Reformers
on the subject of responsible grace, says Gunter. ---Irressistable Grace because he felt it
was resistable. ---Gunter said in his comparison of Wesley
with Calvin: “It is particularly this notion about ‘responsible grace’ that
made Wesley vulnerable in his soteriology to charges of transgressing
Reformation orthodoxy.” ---Gunter found them the same but differed
on election: “The Protestant theologians with whom he shared an emphasis on
total depravity drew from it an emphasis on limited atonement and unconditional
election with which Wesley deeply disagreed.” Says Gunter. ---The position taken in the early days of
the Revival (the 1745 London Annual Conference) is foundational to why Wesley
chose The Arminian Magazine as his
identifying periodical in 1778: ---“(1)Ascribing all good to the free
grace of God. ---(2) Denying all natural freewill, and
all power [for salvation] antecedent to grace, And ---(3) Excluding all merit from man; even
what he has and does by the grace of God.” ---On the issue of gracious efficiency and
effectiveness, Wesley said: “Why, the very power to ‘work together with Him’
[is] from God. Therefore to Him is all the glory.” (“Predestination Calmly
Considered,” Works (1872), 8:230.
Compare Arminius, Verklaring, pp.
113-14; Writings, 1:253, sources from
W. Gunter 2001). ---Arminius’ said that “Free Will is
unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good without grace . . . .
I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the
illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the
inclination of the will to that which is good.” (‘Grace and Free Will’ in
“Letter to Hippolytus,” in Writings,
2:472. 13 14). ---Ellen White also agree here with
Arminius and with Wesley that without cooperative Grace it is impossible to do
good. Even Calvin said the same in his commentary on James 2:22 where he used
the word cooperatus in the Latin but Theodore Bezae, his successor changed it
to aid or assistance. ---No perfection is built on human effort
alone. It can only be built by divine help. For those who do not know, it is
also the position of Douglas, Priebe, Andrew Kang, and most “overcoming
preachers”.
---Why overcoming? You cannot be perfect
if you do not overcome. Do you need to overcome? In all the periods of the
churches of Revelation 1-3, overcoming is imperative. Look for yourself.
Thanks.