Dominion over sin and constant peace

The following passage from John Wesley’s journal is quite instructive.  Note his exceptional spiritual and intellectual honesty. 

“In my return to England, January 1738, being in imminent danger of death, and very uneasy on that account, I was strongly convinced that the cause of that uneasiness was unbelief; and that the gaining a true, living faith was the ‘one thing needful’ for me. But still I fixed not this faith on its right object: I meant only faith in God, not faith in or through Christ. Again, I knew not that I was wholly void of this faith; but only thought I had not enough of it. 

So that when Peter Böhler, whom God prepared for me as soon as I came to London, affirmed of true faith in Christ (which is but one) that it had those two fruits inseparably attending it, ‘dominion over sin and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness,’ I was quite amazed, and looked upon it as a new gospel. If this was so, it was clear I had not faith. 

But I was not willing to be convinced of this. Therefore I disputed with all my might, and laboured to prove that faith might be where these were not: for all the scriptures relating to this I had been long since taught to construe away; and to call all Presbyterians who spoke otherwise. Besides, I well saw no one could, in the nature of things, have such a sense of forgiveness, and not feel it. But I felt it not. If, then, there was no faith without this, all my pretensions to faith dropped at once.”

Wesley, John. 1909–1916. The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley. Edited by Nehemiah Curnock. Vol. 1. London: Robert Culley; Charles H. Kelly.

Is justifying faith a sense of pardon? No.

July 31, 1747

Dear Brother (Charles Wesley),

Yesterday I was thinking on a desideratum among us, a genesis problematica on justifying faith. A skeleton of it, (which you may fill up, or any one that has leisure,) I have roughly set down:

Is justifying faith a sense of pardon? Negatur (it is denied)

1. Every one is deeply concerned to understand this question well: But Preachers most of all; lest they either make them sad whom God hath not made sad, or encourage them to say, Peace, where there is no peace.

Some years ago we heard nothing of justifying faith, or a sense of pardon; so that when we did hear of them, the theme was quite new to us; and we might easily, especially in the heat and hurry of controversy, lean too much either to the one hand or to the other.

2. By “justifying faith,” I mean that faith which whosoever hath not is under the wrath and the curse of God. By “a sense of pardon,” I mean a distinct, explicit assurance that my sins are forgiven.

I allow, (1.) That there is such an explicit assurance. (2.) That it is the common privilege of real Christians. (3.) That it is the proper Christian faith, which “purifieth the heart,” and “overcometh the world.”

But I cannot allow, that justifying faith is such an assurance, or necessarily connected therewith.

3. Because, if justifying faith necessarily implies such an explicit assurance of pardon, then every one who has it not, and every one so long as he has it not, is under the wrath and under the curse of God. But this is a supposition contrary to Scripture, as well as to experience.

Contrary to Scripture; to Isaiah 50:10: “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.”

Contrary to Acts 10:34, 35: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

Contrary to experience; for J. R., &c., &c., had peace with God, no fear, no doubt, before they had that sense of pardon. And so have I frequently had.

Again: The assertion, “that justifying faith is a sense of pardon,” is contrary to reason: It is flatly absurd. For how can a sense of our having received pardon be the condition of our receiving it?

4. If you object, (1.) “J. T., St. Paul, &c., had this sense:” I grant they had: But they were justified, or rather had justifying faith, before they had it. (2.) “We know fifteen hundred persons who have this assurance.” Perhaps so: But this does not prove, they had not justifying faith till they received it. (3.) “We have been exceedingly blessed in preaching this doctrine.” We have been blessed in preaching the great truths of the Gospel; although we tacked to them, in the simplicity of our hearts, a proposition which was not true. (4.) “But does not our Church give this account of justifying faith?” I am sure she does of saving or Christian faith: I think she does of justifying faith too. But to the law and to the testimony. All men may err. But the word of the Lord shall stand for ever.

~ John Wesley

A cruel and unscriptural doctrine

John Fletcher: “Judicious Richard Baxter, by a variety of strong arguments, shows, that to represent assurance, or the kingdom of God in the Holy Ghost, as essential to all true faith, and promiscuously to shut up, in a state of damnation, all those to whom that “kingdom is not yet come with power,” is both cruel and unscriptural. (See the arguments in his Confession of Faith, from p. 189 to 214.)”

Turning from the truth

“See that sculler upon yonder river. The unwearied diligence and watchful skill with which he plies his two oars point out to us the work and wisdom of an experienced divine. What an even, gentle spring does the mutual effort of his oars give to his boat! Observe him: his right hand never rests but when the stream carries him too much to the left; he slacks not his left hand unless he is gone too much to the right; nor has he sooner recovered a just medium than he uses both oars again with mutual harmony. Suppose that for a constancy he employed but one, no matter which, what would be the consequence? He would only move in a circle; and if neither wind nor tide carried him along, after a hard day’s work he would find himself in the very spot where he began his idle toil.”

“This illustration needs very little explaining: I shall just observe that the Antinomian is like a sculler, who uses only his right hand oar; and the Pharisee, like him who plies only the oar in his left hand. One makes an endless bustle about grace and faith, the other about charity and works; but both, after all, find themselves exactly in the same case, with this single difference, that one has turned from truth to the right, and the other to the left.“

 ~ John Fletcher

Faith of assurance defined

“8. In August following, I had a long conversation with Arvin Gradin, in Germany. After he had given me an account of his experience, I desired him to give me, in writing, a definition of the full assurance of faith, which he did in the following words:

“Repose in the blood of Christ; a firm confidence in God and persuasion of his favor; the highest tranquillity, serenity, and peace of mind; with a deliverance from every fleshly desire, and a cessation of all, even inward, sins.”

This was the first account I ever heard from any living man, of what I had before learned myself from the oracles of God, and had been praying for (with the little company of my friends) and expecting for several years.”

John Wesley, A PLAIN ACCOUNT of CHRISTIAN PERFECTION

Essentials of saving faith under all dispensations

 “Some of my opponents, who find it easier to pass a jest than to answer an argument, will probably think that to beat me and the doctrine of the dispensations out of the field of truth, they need only laugh at my “inventing” different sorts of faith “by the dozen.”

“To nip this witticism in the bud, I declare, once more, that I make no more difference between the faith of a righteous heathen, and the faith of a father in Christ, than I do between daybreak and meridian light. That the light of a sincere Jew is as much one with the light of a sincere Christian, as the light of the sun in a cold, cloudy day in March, is one with the light of the sun in a fine day in May. And, that the difference between the saving faith peculiar to the sincere disciples of Noah, Moses, John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ, consists in a variety of degrees, and not in a diversity of species; saving faith under all dispensations agreeing in the following essentials: (1.) It is begotten by the revelation of some saving truth, presented by free grace, impressed by the Spirit, and received by the believer’s prevented free agency. (2.) It has the same original cause in all, that is, the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. (3.) It actually saves all, though in various degrees. (4.) Its sets all upon working righteousness; “some bearing fruit thirty, some sixty, and some a hundred fold.” And (5.) Through Christ it will bring all that do not make shipwreck of it, to one or another of “the many mansions,” which our Lord is gone to prepare in heaven for his believing, obedient people.” ~ John Fletcher

We have leaned too much toward Calvinism

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF SOME LATE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE REV. MR. WESLEY AND OTHERS, AT A PUBLIC CONFERENCE, HELD IN LONDON, AUGUST 7, 1770, AND PRINTED BY W. FINE, IN BRISTOL

Take heed to your doctrine. 

We said in 1744, 'We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.' Wherein?

1. With regard to man's faithfulness. Our Lord himself taught us to use the expression. And we ought never to be ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert, on his authority, that if a man is not' ‘faithful in the unrighteous mammon,' God will not 'give him the true riches.'

2. With regard to working for life. This also our Lord has expressly commanded us. ' Labour,' (literally, 'work') 'for the meat that endureth to everlasting life.' And in fact every believer, till he comes to glory, works for, as well as from life.

3. We have received it as a maxim, that 'a man is to do nothing in order to justification.' Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires to find favour with God,—should 'cease from evil, and learn to do well.' Whoever repents, should do 'works meet for repentance.' And if this is not in order to find favour what does he do them for?

Review the whole affair.

1. Who of us is now accepted of God? "He that now believes in Christ, with a loving, obedient heart."

2. But who among those who never heard of Christ? "He that feareth God, and worketh righteousness according to the light he has."

3. Is this the same with 'he that is sincere?' "Nearly, if not quite."

4. Is not this 'salvation by works?' "Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition."

5. What have we then been disputing about for these thirty years? "I am afraid, about words."

6. As to merit itself of which we have been so dreadfully afraid: we are rewarded, according to our works, yea, because of our works. How does this differ from, for the sake of our works? And how differs this from secundum merita operum, 'as our works deserve?' Can you split this hair? I doubt [you can], I cannot.

7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn from matter of fact. God does in fact justify those who by their own confession, 'neither feared God nor wrought righteousness.' Is this an exception to the general rule? "It is a doubt whether God makes any exception at all. But how are we sure that the person in question never did ' fear God and work righteousness?' His own saying so is not proof: for we know how all that are convinced of sin undervalue themselves in every respect."

8. Does not talking of a justified or sanctified state tend to mislead men? almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our works: according to the whole of our inward tempers and our outward behaviour.