Wesley Responds to Calvin on Predestination!

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Welcome to the SciFi Dojo. Those of you who watch this channel, maybe you've seen our videos and our playlist here on Calvinism, Arminianism. There's a two-part episode where we present what is Calvinism and then there's a follow-up where I present the view that I take that is not Calvinism, but it's also not exactly classical Arminianism either. And I was trained in Calvinism with very good Calvinist professors. My systematic theology text in seminary was Institutes. We were allowed to choose our own systematic for the course depending on what tradition we were in and I was pretty familiar with Wesleyan Methodist theology, but I was not familiar first hand with Calvinism. You know, growing up you hear the different caricatures of what other people believe. So I decided I'm going to read from the source and I did my theology largely in the shadow of Calvin, Luther, Augustine, some others. And that actually made me more appreciative of the tradition that I come from, which is general Wesleyanism. Right now I go to an Anglican church, but my theology is still very much in line with what John and Charles Wesley taught because they too were Anglican priests. And I have recommended on the channel before the works of John Wesley. This is from a much larger set. This is the old Jackson edition. But I love reading John Wesley's works. I read them I started reading them in college and then all through seminary. John Wesley is one of the most underrated theologians in church history. He doesn't get a lot of credit because he spent his time riding around England on horseback preaching three times a day rather than writing massive systematic texts like Calvin or Luther or Aquinas or Augustine or any of these others. And so a lot of times people look at Wesley as sort of a lightweight theologian, but that's really not true and the best way to see that is by reading his actual works. So I thought it'd be fun. There's a short track. This is from volume volumes 9 and 10 are published together in this edition. This is from volume 10 in his letters, essays, dialogues, and addresses. And it's called a dialogue between a predestinarian and his friend.

[00:02:06]So, predestinarian is just Wesley's term for Calvinist. And rather than do the overhead camera, I actually have Wesley's works in Logos. So, I'm going to pull that up on screen. And it's a really cool instance of Wesley doing what we encourage here at Disciples Dojo, which is sparring. The title is a dialogue between a predestinarian and his friend, not his enemy. And Wesley quotes specifically and only from known Calvinist writings of his day, particularly from Institutes. And the goal is so that you can go look up any of the quotes for yourself and see if he's taking them out of context or what have you. So, it's not a long treatise.

[00:02:47]I mean, he's written some longer things.

[00:02:48]This is fairly short. So, we're going to I'm just going to walk through it and kind of, you know, paraphrase or translate some of it because Wesley, again, was writing in the 1700s. So, the language may be a little archaic, but I want viewers to be able to follow along and see the train of thought. Now, I know I have Calvinist viewers. I know I have Arminian viewers. I know I have some communalist viewers. I know I have viewers that don't believe any of this and they're going to tell me in the comments how silly it is that I believe in magic sky daddy or any of those other edgy terms that trolls like to throw around in online discourse. But, the purpose of this, again, this is not a video arguing my position. This is not a video dunking on Calvinists. This is I'm letting John Wesley present what he thinks about Calvinism based on the works of Calvinists that he read and the Calvinists that he interacted with throughout his ministry. And then you, as the viewer, if you're interested, you can go further and say, "Yeah, okay. I think Wesley's wrong. Oh, I think Wesley's right. Oh, he convinced me. Oh, I'm kind of convinced. I don't know what I believe. What else should I look into?" So, the goal will just be to jump-start your own theological journey if you've never really sat and thought about this. Or, if you came to your opinion early and haven't thought about it since. I mean, the motto of the Reformation, right? Reformed and always reforming. A lot of people I know do that first part really well, and they don't do the second part. So, if you appreciate this type of, you know, theological discussion, we would love for you to subscribe if you haven't done so already, and tap the notifications bell when you do. Really helps us as a channel. All right. So, let's hear Wesley versus Calvin.

[00:04:25]>> [music] >> So, I've pulled up in Logos the works of John Wesley. This is I think this is the three it's divided into three big volumes. His sermons, his journals and letters, and then his essays. This is all available free online as well. You I'll I'll put a link in the video description if you want to read this and you don't have Logos. A dialogue between a predestinarian and his friend.

[00:04:51]Subtitle, out of thy own mouth to all predestinarians. So, here's his preface at the beginning. I'm informed some of you have said that the following quotations are false. That these words were not spoken by these authors. Others that they were not spoken in this sense.

[00:05:06]And others that neither you yourself nor any true predestinarian ever did or ever would speak so. So, he's addressing the criticisms up front. My friends, the authors here quoted are well-known in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them know in your own conscience they were spoken in this sense and no other. Nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken. So, he's saying, I haven't taken these out of context, and you can go see for yourself. But, be this as it may, do you indeed say no true predestinarian ever did or would speak so?

[00:05:41]Why, every true predestinarian must speak so. And so must you yourself, too, if you dare speak out unless they and you renounce your fundamental principle.

[00:05:51]Cuz like if you hold your fundamental principle, you have to speak this way. I am going to Wesley is say he's trying to say that this is Calvinism, predestinarianism taken to its logical conclusion, not a straw man of it. Now of course, whether you believe him or not, that's the whole point of reading this. So, what's that fundamental principle? He says paragraph four, "Your fundamental principle is this. God from eternity ordained whatsoever should come to pass." That's the foundational principle. He says all Calvinism hinges on that concept that God foreordained from eternity whatever will come to pass. But from this single position undeniably follows every assertion here after mentioned. So he's everything he's going to say comes from this presupposition right here. God from eternity ordained whatsoever should come to pass. It remains therefore only that you choose which you please. For one you must choose of these three things. So he says, "Based on this, you got three choices.

[00:06:48]Either you can equivocate, evade the question, and prevaricate without end."

[00:06:52]Prevaricate means to speak or or act in an evasive way. Choice two, swallow all these assertions together and honestly avow them. So, bite the bullet and say, "Yeah, I believe all this." Or three, renounce them all together and believe in Christ the savior of all. And so, Wesley's arguing that actually Jesus, the the biblical God of scripture, is not the God that you're going to find in predestinarian doctrine. Now of course, Calvinists say this about Arminians all the time. And there have been councils and denunciations and all manner preaching. This is You see this on both sides, especially in earlier centuries of this debate. So those are the three options Wesley says you have. And now he begins. So, friend is going to be the character that Wesley uses to basically present his view. And the predestinarian is every answer is going going quoted from a specific Calvinist work. Says, "Sir, I've heard that you make God the author of all sin and the destroyer of the greater part of mankind without mercy." It's a serious charge, but that's what the friend has heard.

[00:07:53]Somebody said Calvinism makes God the author of sin and the one who destroys most of humanity forever in the fires of hell. Like the people are like, "What Is this what you believe?" The predestinarian, "I deny it. I only say God did from all eternity unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." So, there's the claim and this is from Assemblies Catechism, chapter 3. The friend, "Do you make no exception?"

[00:08:18]Predestinarian, "No, surely. For nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God." Calvin's Institutes, book 1, chapter 16, section 3. Now, the wording here, this is where Calvin wrote in French, I believe, and I don't know what French translation that Wesley was you Wesley read French. He was probably just reading and translating on the fly or else he was reading a published tract or published version of Institutes in English done at his time. So, if you go to like this is the Beverage translation Henry Beverage of Institutes. If you go there, the wording is going to be a little different than what Wesley's saying, but you can see the sense is the same.

[00:09:03]Calvin says no, God's omnipotence is he ordains everything. And this might be the line that Wesley siding. He says, "But if the government of God thus extends to all his works." In other words, if God has ordained everything that comes to pass, "It is a childish cavil to confine it to natural influx."

[00:09:21]And then in the next section, section 4, Calvin makes it even clearer. He says, "First then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the deity sitting idly in heaven looks on what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helm and overrules all events. Hence, his providence extends not less to the hand than to the eye.

[00:09:43]So, whether that's actually what Calvin is saying or whether this is pop predestinarianism that Wesley's responding to that was prevalent in his circles, or whether he's misreading Calvin, again, that's for you to decide based on reading the primary sources.

[00:09:59]So, nothing's more absurd than to think that anything is done except by the ordination of God. So, the friend asks, "Do you extend this to the actions of men?" Without doubt. Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God that nothing can come to pass but what was ordained by him. Again, section 3, chapter 16, book 1 of the Institutes.

[00:10:20]But, what then becomes of the wills of men? The wills of men are so governed by the will of God that they are carried on straight to the mark which he has foreordained. See section 8. And here's that quote. Hence, we maintain that by his providence not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined. So, then the friend, "I suppose you mean the permissive will of God?" No, I mean all things come to pass by the efficacious and irresistible will of God. And then he quotes this Calvinist source which is Twissi, I don't know what Twissi means.

[00:10:58]This is Latin. Twissi Vindication of the Grace, Power, and Providence of God, the Geneva edition.

[00:11:06]I'm not familiar with this source. I don't have it in my library. But, paragraph 3, page 19. All things come to pass by the efficacious and irresistible will of God. Friend, "Why then all men must do just what they do?"

[00:11:20]Predestinarian, "True. It is impossible that anything should ever be done but that to which God impels the will of men." Quoting again from the same source. "But, does not this imply the necessity of all events? In other words, predestination, doesn't that just inevitably lead to determinism? I will not scruple to own that the will of God lays a necessity on all things and that everything he wills necessarily comes to pass. Institutes, book 3, chapter 24, section 8. And now this is where I think that there's an error, either Wesley or the printer. He quotes Calvin's Institutes, book 3, chapter 24, section 8, where he says Calvin basically says, I I'll own it that everything that God says comes to pass, specifically. But it's actually I think in chapter 23.

[00:12:10]This is I've got the Logos edition of Institutes as well. And chapter 23, section 8 of book 1 is where he says, I will not hesitate therefore simply to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity and that everything is necessary which he has willed, just as those things will certainly happen which he has foreseen. And he's objecting, the question he's answering is the supposed distinction between God's will and God's permission, his overall will and his permissive will, in order to prove that the wicked perish only by permission, but not by the will of God. And so Calvin is specifically refuting that in this section of Institutes. So while this citation I think is an error, the gist of what Wesley's putting in the mouth of the predestinarian is responding to the question in Institutes. So So I think he's rightly characterizing the argument that Institutes, Calvin says, yeah, I'll own it. God necessitates everything that happens. He doesn't just permit things to happen. He makes them happen. So the friend says, does sin then necessarily come to pass? Predestination, undoubtedly. For the almighty power of God extends itself to the first fall and all other sins of angels and men, quoting the Assembly's Catechism again.

[00:13:24]The friend says, I grant God foresaw the first man would fall. In other words, it didn't surprise God. He saw it.

[00:13:30]Predestinarian know, God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should. And this is the section I think he is paraphrasing.

[00:13:41]Calvin says, I again ask how is it that the fall of Adam involved so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God. Calvin is saying it had to God had to have a good reason. Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. In other words, we can't say. The decree I admit is dreadful. And yet it is impossible to not deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him and foreknew because he had so ordained by his decree. Should anyone here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. And he goes on to say, nor ought it to seem absurd when I say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man and in him the ruin of his posterity, but also at his own pleasure arranged it. So, Wesley is very much following in line with Calvin's argument in that section. And the friend says, I know God permitted Adam's fall. Predestinarian, I tell you he fell not only by the permission, but also by the appointment of God. And then he quotes Calvin's response to the calumnies of a certain Nebulon on the first article. I don't know who the certain Nebulon is that Calvin's responding to. And again from that same section of Institutes we just looked at, he sinned because God so ordained because the Lord saw good. The friend says, but do not those who differ from you raise many objections against you on this point? And then he says, yes, those poisonous dogs vomit out many things against God. They deny that the scripture says God decreed Adam's fall.

[00:15:22]They say he might have chose either to fall or not and that God foreordained only to treat him according to his desert. As if God had created the noblest of all his creatures without foreordaining what should become of him.

[00:15:33]And so this quote is from section seven, but this quote those poisonous dogs vomit out many things against God. Here it is in context in section two. Calvin writes, "These observations would be amply sufficient for the pious and modest and such as remember that they are men." In other words, humans are going to understand what I'm saying and going to it's going to be enough for them. But because many are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against God, we shall as far as the case admits give an answer to each.

[00:16:04]Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God as if they held him subject to their accusations. So notice in in Calvin's mind, he's defending God, God's doctrine, what God has revealed.

[00:16:16]So then the friend goes on, "Did God then make Adam on purpose that he might fall?" The Predestinarian, "Undoubtedly.

[00:16:23]God made Adam and Eve to this very purpose that they might be tempted and led into sin and by force of his decree it could not otherwise be but they must sin." And this is from a text it looks like it's a Fisherman's Dispute on Predestination maybe preface I I don't know what this what text this is, page six though. So yeah, God made Adam and Eve for the purpose of them sinning. And it could not have been otherwise. So the friend, "But do you not ground God's decree on God's foreknowledge rather than his will?" In other words, God saw what would be happening and willed it in spite of what he's seeing for for whatever reason we don't know some greater good or something rather than decreeing that it actually happened, making it happen. Predestinarian, "No.

[00:17:13]God foresees nothing but what he has decreed and his decree precedes his knowledge. Everything God sees and knows about what humanity will do in the future is because he has decreed that they will do it. Friend, well, this may truly be termed a horrible decree.

[00:17:30]Predestinarian, from that section that we just saw, book three, chapter 23, I confess it is a horrible decree. Yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam's fall and therefore foreknew it because he had ordained it so by his own decree.

[00:17:46]And again, here's that quote on the page from Calvin. It's page 232 in the Beverage edition. So, the friend says, "Do you believe then that God, by his own positive decree, not only elected some men to life, but also reprobated all the rest?" This is the question of double predestination. Did God merely choose to save some and pass over the others? That's single predestination.

[00:18:12]And then whatever their fate is, that's their fate, but he's only predestined to save. That's single predestination. Or, double predestination, God specifically chose to save the elect and God specifically, actively chose to damn the reprobate. That's double predestination.

[00:18:33]So, the friend's asking, "Do you believe that?" And the predestinarian bites the bullet. He says, "Most assuredly, if I believe one, I believe the other. Many indeed, thinking to excuse God, own election and yet deny reprobation." Single predestination. But this is quite silly and childish.

[00:18:50]For without reprobation, election itself cannot stand. Whom God passes by, those he reprobates. And here, Institutes, book three, chapter 23, section one, Calvin himself was very clear on this. He says, "The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, double predestination, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that anyone is reprobated. Gives an example in Bernard. So, they're like, yes, predestination, but not double predestination. He says, this they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation. Again, Wesley is correctly giving this response straight from Calvin's Institutes, basically. So, then the friend says, "Pray, explain what you mean by election and reprobation." Predestinarian, "With all my heart, all men are not created for the same end, but some are foreordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. So, according as every man was created for the one end or the other, we say he was elected or predestinated to life or reprobated, that is, predestinated to destruction." Same section of Institutes. And Calvin is getting this from his reading of Romans 9, as well as Jesus' parable of the weeds being pulled up in Matthew 15:13.

[00:20:19]And he says, "It by no means follows that he, meaning Paul, transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God.

[00:20:29]This indeed is asserted in the preceding context where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh and to harden whom he will.

[00:20:35]Hence, it follows that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening." Very clear in Calvin. Again, this is page 227 of the Beverage version. God is the one who hardens, and we don't know why, and we just have to trust and say, "I don't know, but God is the one who's done it." So, double predestination is inevitable if you believe in election. So, the friend says, "Pray, repeat your meaning." Like, wait, are you saying what I think you're saying? The Predestinarian. God hath once for all appointed by an eternal and unchangeable decree to whom he would give salvation and whom he would devote to destruction. And he's again quoting section seven of this same chapter of Institutes. So, the friend says, "Did God make any man on purpose that he might be damned?" Like, God specifically made someone in order to damn them?

[00:21:29]Predestinarian, "Did I not tell you before?" God's first constitution was that some should be destined to eternal ruin. And to this end, their sins were ordained and denial of grace in order to their sins. This is from Zanchius on the nature of God. And so, the friend says, "But isn't God's predestining men to life or death grounded on his foreknowledge?" In other words, yeah, we all believe God predestines either to destruction or to salvation. We all agree on that, but isn't it because he sees what they will freely choose to do?

[00:22:04]And that's the reason for their predestining. This is classical Arminianism. The Predestinarian, "So, the vulgar think that God, as he foresees every man will deserve, elects them to life or devotes them to death and damnation." So, yeah, the vulgar think that, that God foresees rather than decrees. And this is again chapter 22, section one of the third book of Institutes. So, the friend says, "And do you not think that reprobation at least is grounded on God's foreknowing men's sins?" Predestinarian, "No, indeed. God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born who are from the womb devoted to inevitable damnation. If any man pretend that God's foreknowledge lays them under no necessity of being damned, but rather that he decreed their damnation because he foreknew their wickedness, I grant that God's foreknowledge alone lays no necessity on the creature, but eternal life and death depend on the will rather than the foreknowledge of God. If God only foreknew all things that relate to all men and did not decree and ordain them also, then it might be inquired whether or not his foreknowledge necessitates the thing foreknown. But seeing he therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass because he has decreed they shall come to pass, it is vain to contend about foreknowledge since it's so plain all things come to pass by God's positive decree. And that's page 231 of the Beverage edition where Calvin says that and interestingly right up before that, look at what Calvin says based on Proverbs 26:4 which says the Lord has made all things for himself, yeah even the wicked for the day of evil. Calvin says now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to certain death and are to glorify him by their destruction.

[00:24:12]So he's taking the proverb that God has made the day of destruction for the wicked or God made the wicked for a day of destruction, a proverbial saying and he's taking that as an axiomatic truth that God has made them wicked and it's for his own glory. And so the friend says, but if God has positively decreed to damn the greater part of mankind why does he call upon them to repent and be saved? And he quotes the beginning Institutes book 3 chapter 24 section 12, as God has his effectual call whereby he gives the elect the salvation to which he ordained them, so he has his judgments toward the reprobates whereby he executes his decree concerning them.

[00:24:50]As many therefore as he created to live miserably and then perish everlastingly, these that they may be brought to the end for which they were created, he sometimes deprives of the possibility of hearing the word. So, those who just don't ever get to hear the gospel is because God made them to be damned. And other times, by the preaching thereof, the ones who do hear the gospel but are reprobate, he blinds and stupefies them the more. And further down in the chapter, Calvin says, "The supreme disposer, meaning God, then makes way for his own predestination when depriving those whom he has reprobated of the communication of his light, he leaves them in blindness."

[00:25:33]So, the friend says, "How is this?"

[00:25:36]I say, "If God has created them for never-ending death, why does he call to them to turn and live?" He calls to them that they may be more deaf. He kindles a light that they may be more blind. He brings his doctrine to them that they may be more ignorant and applies the remedy to them that they may not be healed. And here is that quote, page 252, book 3 of Institutes. So, the friend says, "Enough, enough. Yet you do not make God the author of sin?"

[00:26:04]Predestinarian, "No, certainly. God cannot be termed the author of sin, though he is the cause of those actions which are sins." This is cited from Peter the Martyr Vermigli common Roman, I'm not sure this tract. "God cannot be termed the author of sin, though he is the cause of those actions which are sins." Wesley's like, "Really?

[00:26:26]How is he the cause of them then?" Two ways. First, by his eternal unchangeable decree, second, by his present irresistible power. The friend, "Did God then foreordain the sins of any man?"

[00:26:39]Predestinarian, "Both the reprobates and the elect were foreordained to sin as sin that the glory of God might be declared thereby." Zanchius on the nature of God, "The reprobates, more especially who were predestinated to damnation and the cause of damnation and created to that end that they may live wickedly and be vessels full of the dregs of sin. And that's from Piscator contra Talfium. The friend, but surely the sins of the elect were not foreordained. Destinarian, yes, but they were.

[00:27:10]For we neither can do more good than we do, nor less evil than we do, because God from eternity has precisely decreed that both the good and the evil should be so done. And this is from Piscator's responsio ad amicum duplicatonem Conradi Vorstii. The friend, I understand you as to God's decreeing sin, but how is his irresistible power now concerned in the sins of men? So, okay, you God's the one who's decreed sin, what does his irresistible power have to do with it? God is the author of that action which is sinful by his irresistible will. That's quoting from Twisse. How do you mean? God procures adultery, cursings, lying, citing Piscator as in responding to his apologia of Berti. He supplies wicked men with opportunities of sinning and inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, deceives, and seduces them. He, by his working on their hearts, bends and stirs them up to do evil. It's from that previous track of Peter Martyr and thus thieves, murderers, and other malefactors are God's instruments which he uses to execute what he hath decreed in himself. And that's from Institutes book one, chapter 17. And in book one, chapter 17, section five of Institutes, Calvin discusses all of this, how men can sin because God ordains it, but God's not guilty because they are wanting to do it. But they're wanting to do it because God's ordained it, but they want to do it and so Calvin is just kind of by the end he you sort of he's kind of frustrated and he He "While the matter and guilt of wickedness belongs to the wicked man, why should it be thought that God contracts any impurity in using it at pleasure as his instrument? Have done then with that dog-like petulance which may indeed bay from a distance at the justice of God, but cannot reach it."

[00:29:01]So, you see this in Institutes a lot of times when Calvin is kind of pressed into a corner, his response is to drawing from Romans 9 what he thinks Paul is doing to say, "Who are you to talk back?" Like it kind of frequently falls back on that. Who Who are you to talk back? Who are we to judge God? And the friend, to be clear, do you not then charge God himself with sin? No, God necessitates them only to the act of sin, not to the deformity of sin, quoting from Twisse again. "Besides, when God makes angels or men sin, he does not sin himself because he does not break any law. For God is under no law and therefore cannot sin." And now he's quoting Zwingli in his sermon on Providence of God. And the friend, "But how does God make angels or men to sin?"

[00:29:47]Quoting Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 17, Section 11, "The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side with the hand of God that they cannot conceive or contrive or execute any mischief any further than God himself doth not permit only, but command.

[00:30:05]Nor are they only held in fetters, but compelled also as with a bridle to perform obedience to those commands."

[00:30:13]So, Calvin's very clear in Book 1, Chapter 17. God's not allowing wickedness to happen. God is commanding that it happen. And the friend, "This is true Turkish doctrine, and by Turkish he's talking about Muslim, and ought so to be exploded as that used to be in these words." And he says, "You know, we used to repudiate Islamic determinism with the following words, I do anathematize the blasphemy of Muhammad which saith that God deceiveth whom he will and whom he will he leadeth to that which is good. Himself doth what he willeth and is himself the cause of all good and all evil. Fate and destiny govern all things. From Nicetas Saracintia. So he's like that you're you have become Islamic basically in terms of your view of God's determinism.

[00:31:01]Predestinarian, no, our doctrine is more ancient than Muhammad. It was maintained by St. Augustine. Early in Augustine's life he held one view of providence and the holiness and determinism. Later in his life Augustine took a different view and there's question about how much his Manichaeism came into all of his later theology. So the friend rather than getting into that says Augustine speaks sometimes for it and sometimes against it. But all antiquity for the first four centuries, Augustine was fifth century, is against you. As is the whole Eastern Church to this day. Eastern Orthodoxy do not accept the doctrine of predestination. And the Church of England both in her catechism, articles, and homilies. And so are the divers of our most holy martyrs, Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer in particular. So contemporaries of Wesley. And then the predestinarian responds, but doesn't antiquity say Judas was predestinated to damnation? And the friend, quite the contrary. St. Chrysostom's express words are, Judas my beloved was at first a child of the kingdom and heard it said to him with the disciples, you shall sit on 12 thrones, but afterwards he became a child of hell. The predestinarian, however, you'll own that Esau was predestined to destruction. The friend, indeed I will not. Some of your own writers believe he was finally saved, which was the general opinion of the ancient fathers, and that scripture Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated plainly relates not to their persons but to their posterities, the nations of Israel and Edom. But supposing Esau or Judas to be damned, what is he damned for? Predestinarian, without question for unbelief. For as we are saved by faith alone, so unbelief is the only damning sin. Friend, by what faith are you saved? Predestinarian, by faith in Christ, who gave himself for me. Friend, but did he give himself for Esau and Judas?

[00:32:50]If not, you say they are damned for not believing a lie. In other words, if you're damned for rejecting the idea that Jesus died for me and and therefore receiving the gospel and repenting, if you're reprobate, that's a lie because Jesus didn't die for you because you're a reprobate. So, you're damned for believing what's not true. This is what Wesley's getting at. He says, "This consideration it was which forced Archbishop Usher to cry out, 'What would not a man fly unto rather than yield that Christ did not die for the reprobates, and that none but the elect had any kind of title to him? And yet many thousands should be bound in conscience to believe that he died for them and tied to accept him for their redeemer and savior, whereby they should have believed that which in itself is most untrue and laid hold of that in which they had no kind of interest.'" So, Wesley's saying, "I'm not making this stuff up. Even Archbishop Usher recognized this as well, that if Jesus did not die for the reprobate, then you're not damned for unbelief. You're damned because God created you to be damned. You can't believe in something that's not true for you." So, the Predestinarian, "But what then do you mean by the words election and reprobation?" So, now the Predestinarian is getting a chance to ask Wesley what he thinks about these two. So, we've already heard what the Predestinarian view of election and reprobation are.

[00:34:06]Here's now Wesley's going to give his.

[00:34:08]"I mean this. First, God did decree from the beginning to elect or choose in Christ all that should believe to salvation. And this decree proceeds from his own goodness, and it was not built upon any goodness in the creature." So, this is important cuz a lot of people say Wesley or Arminians believe that, you know, humans are kind of good, they're not really bad, that can save themselves. That's where you get into charges of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.

[00:34:35]So, what Wesley's being very clear, God did decree from the beginning to elect or choose, but it was only in Christ.

[00:34:44]And it was collectively all that should believe to salvation. Classical Arminianism would say not necessarily collectively, but individually those God foresaw would freely choose to accept his salvation. So, that's where there's a divide between a corporate view and the classical Arminian view.

[00:35:01]But Wesley's made it clear, and this decree proceeds from his own goodness and is not built upon any goodness in the creature. Wesley affirmed total depravity. He was a one-point Calvinist.

[00:35:13]Secondly, God did from the beginning decree to reprobate all who should obstinately and finally continue in unbelief. So, the eternal decree on the reprobate is any who put themselves in that category, this is their fate. It's decreed from all eternity that this is going to be the fate of those who obstinately and finally continue in unbelief.

[00:35:39]Predestinarian, well, what then do you think of absolute unconditional election and reprobation? This will be the U in TULIP. The friend, I think it cannot be found in Holy Writ and that it is a plant which bears dismal fruit. An instance of which we have in Calvin himself who confesses that he procured the burning to death of Michael Servetus purely for differing from him in opinion in matters of religion. So, Wesley's final closing in this is, yeah, I think it's rotten fruit. And I think Calvin bore rotten fruit because he had a guy burned at the stake who disagreed with him theologically. Now, to be fair, Servetus was on trial already, and it wasn't just because he disagreed with Calvin. So, there's debate about what did Calvin did he get him killed or did he just say, yeah, he is criminally responsible and should be killed. Like, this is where you uh look into the incident with Calvin and Michael Servetus if you're interested in this because it's more than as Wesley is presenting it here. And many non-Calvinists to this day do this. They just say, "Well, Calvin had a heretic burned at the stake, so his theology is a doctrine of the devil and why would you ever believe it?" I would say as someone who is Wesleyan in their theology, as a non-Calvinist, this is an oversimplified presentation of it. And yet, I do not side with Calvin on it and I think he was wrong. I think he should have used everything at his disposal to not let this happen. But, that's the end of this essay. The next one in this one is a dialogue between an Antinomian and his friend, so someone who easy believism, just I accepted Jesus or I go to church and so therefore how I live doesn't really matter. So, Wesley's going to take him to task next in the next essay. Now, if you're Calvinist and you're watching this, you're going to be like, "Wesley, he got it wrong because what about this, this, this, and this?"

[00:37:26]If you're Wesleyan or Arminian, you're going to watch this and go, "Yeah, and Calvinism also says other things that are wrong such as this, this, this, and this." But, that's the whole point is these aren't treatises, these are massive collections, works over years and years. This is a good example of theological sparring, I think. And when we enter into theological debate, we're entering into something bigger than us.

[00:37:50]This is one of the reasons that I would say beware of clickbaity YouTube theology or TikTok theology. When someone claims that, "Oh, well, this view is clearly false because" or "Calvinism destroyed by so-and-so" or "Arminianism obliterated by so-and-so."

[00:38:11]You know, all these clickbaity YouTube debate type words that just they generate clicks and fire up the followers, the little teams that cheer on their particular debaters. I don't really have time for any of that, honestly. I think it's counterproductive. I think it gets you more views. It gets more eyes on you, but rarely does it generate more light than it does heat. So, I would encourage you, wherever you land in this debate, read from the sources first hand. Get a copy of Institutes. You can get it digitally. You can get a paperback copy if you want. You can get a nice hardback copy. You can read it free online. I will link to where you can read both the Institutes and Wesley's works absolutely free online. So, there's no excuse for not reading it now other than you just don't have the time or want to take the time. And if the former, then that's fine. We only have so much time in our lives. But if it's something that interests you, if it interests you enough to devote your energy to debating it or arguing it online or or making snide posts or memes about the other side, you owe it to them. You owe it to yourself. owe it to God to really make sure you know what you're talking about and that you have read from the best of the other voices. Whether you're convinced by Wesley or not, you have to give him credit for specifically citing Institutes. He did read Calvin. He read other the other tractates and others that he cited as well. But he was pulling predominantly from Calvin. And again, agree or disagree, that's the way to do it. Go to the source and read them. And use what they are saying.

[00:39:52]Don't argue against something that they're not saying. So, anyway, that'll do for this episode. I hope you found it interesting, helpful. You know, we focus more on biblical scholarship here at Discipledojo. But every now and then I think it's cool to dip into the world of theology a little bit. So, if you're interested in this, check out the playlist. I'll put this video in our Calvinism Arminianism playlist here on the channel. There's a couple other videos that have to do with that subject. But that'll do for now. Thanks for watching. Stay tuned for more here at the Disciples Dojo. And in the meantime, as always, keep training.

[00:40:25]>> [music]