Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part III.IV
Commands inconsistent with LFW

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V

How Does Grace Work in Arminian-Wesleyan Theology?

by Eric Landstrom

How grace is understood to work is the key to unlocking any Christian theology or theological tradition. As such, I thought it beneficial to unpack the Wesleyan or traditionally Methodist view of how grace is understood to work. The Wesleyan view should be of particular interest to Christians influenced by eastern theological thought since John Wesley, in his later years, backed away from the doctrine of original sin in favor of ancestral sin.* As a result, there are several "Wesleyanisms" that bear Wesley's name that stem from different points of Wesley's own theological development. Here I present Wesley's mature view via Tom Oden's works.**

Discussion: Grace and Sin

Is God's grace irresistible? The answer to that question will be determined by your theological convictions. If God must first regenerate people (whom He has pre-selected for salvation) in order for them to believe, then the answer to the question is yes, God's grace is irresistible.

However, if you believe that the Bible teaches that faith precedes regeneration, then the answer to the question is no, God's grace is not irresistible.

Arminius stated, "[The Internal Work of salvation] is by the operation of the Holy Spirit illuminating the mind and affecting the heart, that serious attention may be given to those things which are spoken, and that faith or credence may be given to the word.

I found this mockery at a Calvinist's blog, who will remain nameless:

"Arminian 'grace!' How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me. I once was lost, then turned around, Was blind, then chose to see.

"What 'grace' is it that calls for choice, Made from some good within? That part that wills to heed God's voice, Proved stronger than my sin.

"Thru many ardent gospel pleas, I sat with heart of stone. But then some hidden good in me, Propelled me toward my home.

"When we've been there ten thousand years, Because of what we've done. We've no less days to sing our praise, Than when we first begun."

I'd like to hear Chris Tomlin do something with that one! John Newton would have been proud of our Calvinist "friend." Actually, I think Newton would have been disgusted. I think every Christian should be disgusted with the heresy mentioned in that re-working of a classic hymn. And if that encapsulated Arminian theology, I would never adhere to such nonsense.

The content of this post was authored by J.C. Thibodaux and is posted on his behalf.

Many Calvinists point to such concepts as total depravity and bondage of the will to make the case that the will is not free, but don’t realize that they hit cleanly beside the point in that we agree that the human will is by nature enslaved to sin.

One cannot correctly understand the Arminian/Synergist view of libertarian free will without first understanding prevenient grace. Reformed theologians are correct in saying that the human will is in bondage to sin stemming from the sin of Adam,

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

Thus by nature, human beings are blind and hard-hearted towards the gospel and cannot believe in Christ of their own accord. To overcome the power of the sinful nature, something stronger than sin must enter into the equation, which can only come from God. Jesus said in John 6:44,

What did Paul mean when he made the statements that there is "none who seeks after God," or that man's "throat is an open tomb"? (Rom. 3.10-18) The majority of Calvinists are convinced that Paul was speaking about the spiritual condition of each and every human being ever to be born. One is left with the impression that humans are, at the least, repugnant in the nostrils of God, and at worst, as bad as demons. Is this an accurate portrayal of God's attitude towards His creatures? Was Paul trying to convey how disgusted God is with people at Romans 3.10-18?

At Romans 3.1, Paul asked, "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?" His letter to the Romans included both Jews and Gentiles. He summed up chapter two by exposing hypocrisy: no one, Jew or Gentile, is going to be excused for his or her sins. And circumcision does not guarantee a right standing with God.

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

As I stated in my last post (Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), there is no more important question with regards to the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism than the question of priority with regards to faith and regeneration. R.C. Sproul writes,

A cardinal point or Reformed theology [Calvinism] is the maxim: “Regeneration precedes faith.” Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe. (Chosen By God, pg. 72)

A Wesleyan Interpretation of Romans 5-8

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Jerry McCant

Any assignment whose parameters are set by others can be threatening. After accepting this assignment, I found this one to be so. First, it was to be a Wesleyan interpretation. Given the many "Wesleyanisms"' and the problem Isbell2 had in defining a "Wesleyan position" on the "old man," I was not too hopeful. I was asked to interpret Romans 6-8 from this Wesleyan perspective. For reasons that I shall discuss below, I was not able to be that restrictive, but found myself forced to consider Romans 5-8 as a unit.

John Wesley On the Origins of Evil

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry A. Bryant

One of the more important questions ever confronted by Christian theologians has been how to reconcile the idea that God is loving, good, and just with the presence of evil in the world. The Greek Epicurus summarized the issue well when he asked, "What is the cause of evil?" In answering this question he concluded:

God. . . either wished to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?2

JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith

Introduction

The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley's observation that to say, "This man is an Arminian," was, to some, much the same thing as saying, "This man is a mad dog."1

BIBLICAL CONCEPTS OF SIN

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
KENNETH KINGHORN, Ph.D.

There is no precise biblical definition of sin. The Bible is concerned more with the remedy for sin than with a definition of sin. This study attempts to arrive at the biblical concepts of sin, and to show the relevance of these concepts in the contemporary world.

It is true of the doctrine of sin, as it is true of other doctrines, that the concept of progressive revelation is important. To arrive at a biblical view of sin is only possible after a study of the doctrine of sin in both Testaments. Only gradually does the doctrine of sin unfold throughout the centuries of God's dealing with the human family. Even as a student gradually comprehends truth so the human family has only gradually grasped God's teaching concerning sin.

Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.

Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more "hear" the gospel or "see" our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. - Genesis 1:27 AV

What does it mean for us to have been made in the image of a Holy Lord God? There have been some who contend it is a past state, lost to the fall of man in the garden. Others have suggested it is an image reserved for those redeemed souls who abide in Christ. Others still have staked a claim in promoting an image formed only in the elect of God from before the foundations of the world. Most of Christianity seems to accept the idea that all of mankind was formed in the image of God and scripture appears to bear this out. When establishing the covenant with Noah, the LORD provided an injunction against murder and its penalty with the following:

The following article was taken from http://revivaltheology.gharvest.com/1_cal_arm/fisk08.html

Moral Agency and Accountability

by The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D.
(This essay comes from Chapter 9 of Fisk's book "Calvinistic Controversy: Embracing a Sermon on Predestination and Election; and Several Numbers on the Same Subject"; originally published in 1832)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------