s1g’s fluisinn nf ffig hnrhr £aftdilsm

by Herbert McGonigle,

Lecturer in New Testament Greek, British Isles Nazarene College.

n 1642 the English Parliament convened the West it I never subscribed but I think it is in the main a I minster Assembly for the purpose of rebuilding very excellent composition which I shall therefore the constitution and theology of the Church of En endeavor to defend, so far as I conceive it is gland. grounded on clear scripture.”3 And this Wesley One hundred fifty-one theologians attended, in does through the next 12 pages, defending, in gen cluding the most learned and erudite divines in eral terms, the larger Catechism’s doctrine of origi England and Scotland—but the Episcopalian schol nal sin against its denial by the Unitarian Taylor. ars, unhappy with the Presbyterian dominance, It was to the “Shorter Catechism” that John Wes refused to participate. The Assembly met between ley gave most attention. Hidden away at the end of July, 1643, and March, 1652, and three important volume 14 of his 30 volumes, “A Christian Library,” theological documents were formulated. The first is his revision of this Catechism.4 He made no addi was “The Westminster Confession,” the most com tions to it, but he did make some important changes. prehensive statement of 17th-century Calvinism When the original text of the Catechism is compared published in English and based on the supralap with Wesley’s “Revision,” the theological signifi sarian Irish Articles of Faith drawn up by Archbishop cance of the alterations is apparent. The Assembly document Ussher in 1615. second Wesley began by removing altogether Questions a directory for the was “The Larger Catechism,” 7 and 8: “What are the decrees of God?” and “How teachers, while the third document was “The use of doth God execute His decrees?” Likewise the re a brief handbook of indoctrina Shorter Catechism,” spective answers: “The decrees of God are His tio n. eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His was familiar The writings of John Wesley show he will, whereby, for His own glory, He hath foreor his “Predestination with all three documents. In dained whatsoever comes to pass”; and, “God times from Calmly Considered,” he quotes three executeth His decrees in the works of creation and one refer “The Larger Catechism”1 and he makes providence.”5 ence to it in his “Thoughts upon Necessity.”2 Wesley was far from being in full agreement with There are no textual notes in Wesley’s “Revision,” the expressly Calvinistic points of this Catechism, but in other writings he expresses his understand but in reply to Dr. Taylor of Norwich, he wrote: “To (Continued on page 62)

59 given as a rule to the reasonable creature.” This 1i1ig’s iñsinn addition makes sin both willful and conscious—the point Wesley argues for. Wesley, no less than the (Continued from page 59) Reformers, is insistent on man’s natural sinfulness. ing of the decrees of election and predestination. “I He uses the Larger Catechism to defend the doc believe election commonly means one of two things. trine of original sin and his accord with Reformed First, it means a divine appointment of some partic theologians at this point is seen in the fact that he ular men to do some particular work in the world transcribed, without change, many pages of Bos and this election I believe not only to be personal ton’s “Fourfold State.” He seems to imply the impu no changes in but absolute and unconditional. . . . Secondly, it tation of Adam’s guilt, for he makes means a divine appointment of some men to eternal the Shorter Catechism’s reply to the question: happiness. But I believe this election to be condi “Wherein consists the sinfulness of the estate tional, as well as the reprobation opposite thereto. whereinto man fell?” “The sinfulness of that estate I believe the eternal decree concerning both is ex consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin.”2 pressed in those words: He that believeth shall be As we would expect, Wesley is opposed to the saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.’ And Calvinistic understanding of the calling of the elect, this decree God will not change and men cannot and he makes changes in Questions 30-32.’ Ques resist. According to this, all true believers are in tion 30 asks: “How doth the Spirit apply to us the scripture termed elect, as all who continue in un redemption purchased by Christ?” and answers: belief are so long properly reprobates.”6 “By working faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.” Wesley removes the phrase “in our effectual calling” and all of Question The most surprising change 31 and its answer: “What is effectual calling?” “Ef in the Shorter fectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, Wesley makes convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening Catechism is his complete re our minds in the knowledge of Christ and renewing moval of the article on adoption. our wills, He doth persuade us and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ In Question 32, Wesley substitutes for the phrase, “they that are effectually called” the phrase “they that truly believe.”4 Wesley was unhappy with the Calvinistic use of most surprising change Wesley makes in the the term “God’s elect,” and in Question 18 and its The Catechism is his complete removal of the answer he substituted the word “mankind.” “Who is Shorter adoption. He expunged Question 34: the Redeemer of mankind?” “The only Redeemer of article on adoption?” and its answer: “Adoption is mankind is the Lord Jesus Christ.”7 He also re “What is free grace, whereby we are received moved Question 20: “Did God leave all mankind to an act of God’s and have a right to all the privi perish in the estate of sin and misery?” and its an into the number of the sons of God.” swer, that speaks of a covenant of grace given to leges those who are “elected to everlasting life.” There is nothing in this answer to which Wesley on adop Question 14 in the Shorter Catechism asks: “What might have objected, as his own teaching Bondage is sin?” and answers: “Sin is any want of conformity tion shows, i.e. his sermon, “The Spirit of Gal. unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” The and Adoption” and his “Notes” on Rom. 8:15; Westminster divines based their answer on 1 John 4:5. Why, then, did he expunge it? We cannot be 3:4: He hamartia estin he anomia, interpreting certain, but a possible reason, admittedly a weak the “anomia” as both “want of conformity to” and one, is that he wanted to set in bolder relief “transgression of” the law of God. preceding question, “What is Justification?” and Wesley significantly struck out the first clause and the succeeding one, “What is Sanctification?”° made the answer: “Sin is a transgression of the law The latter question was of great importance to of God.”8 He would not generally use the West Wesley. The Shorter Catechism answered: “Sancti minster formula though he would occasionally em fication is the work of God’s free grace, whereby ploy it with an explanation. “Every anomia, discon we are renewed in the whole man after the image of formity to, or deviation from, this law [the law of God and are enabled more and more to die unto love in 1 Corinthians 131 is sin.”9 John does not sin and live unto righteousness.” Wesley struck out speak of “any” want of conformity to God’s law but the words “more and more” to emphasize death to rather: “Sin is lawlessness.” Wesley argues that sin as realizable in this life and quoted Rom. 6:4 John does not say: “All transgression of the law is and 6 as proof texts.’7 Wesley’s interpretation of sin. This I deny. Let him prove it that can.” entire sanctification would not harmonize with the In relation to the unbeliever this distinction is Calvinistic teaching on holiness attainable in the unimportant, but for the believer there are discon article of death—so plainly stated in the answer to formities to the law of God not imputed as sin. Question 37. “What benefits do believers receive “Nothing is sin,” Wesley argues, “strictly speaking, from Christ at death?” “The souls of believers are but a voluntary transgression of a known law of at their death made perfect in holiness and do God.” In any analysis of Wesley’s doctrine of sin, immediately pass into glory Wesley strongly the additional explanatory clause given in the Larger denied that scripture taught anywhere a holiness Catechism should be considered. “Any law of God achieved in or at death, and his revised answer

62 reads: “The souls of believers at their death pass was Calvinistic (G. Croft Cell’s abortive attempt into glory 18 showed the fallacy of such a contention),2° it does Wesley’s insistence on a life of holiness made show how large was his area of agreement with possible by the indwelling Spirit led him to expunge Reformed theology. The changes Wesley made are Question 82: “Is any man able perfectly to keep the those expected. In dealing with the divine decrees, commandments of God?” and its answer: “No man he removed the scholastic accretions that went be since the fall is able in this life perfectly to keep yond the teaching of scripture. Relative to sanctifi the commandments of God but doth daily break cation and holy living, Wesley emphasized the Paul them in thought, word, and deed.” The Scottish ine doctrine that “love is the fulfilling of the law”— “Confession of Faith” adopted in 1560 avowed in an emphasis that Patrick Hamilton and John Knox Article 15: “The law of God we confess most just, would have approved. And John Wesley did for the Shorter Catechism what its authors most equal, most holy . . . but our nature is so cor Westminster had not done—he added scriptural references for rupt . . . that we are never able to fulfill the works of the law in perfection.” all the answers. In this, as in all things, Wesley John Knox, however, when incorporating this sought to be homo unius libri. I Confession in his “History of the Reformation in 1. The Works of John Wesley (Beacon Hill. Kansas City ND.), 10: the “Places” (i.e. articles 904-59. Scotland,” included also 2. Ibid., 10:459. of faith) of Patrick Hamilton, the first preacher of 3. Ibid., 10:261. In “Certain Propositions 4. “A Christian Library consisting of Extracts from and Abridge the Scottish Reformation. which been hath ments of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity have proved by Scripture,” Hamilton wrote: “He that Published in the English Tongue,” by John Wesley (London: 1522), faith keepeth all the commandments of God; ergo, 14:387-414. he hath faith keepeth all the commandments of 5. Ibid., pp. 390-91. that 6. Works, p. 210. God.”19 7. “Christian Library,” pp. 393-94. Wesley’s doctrine of justification by faith reaffirms 8. Ibid., p. 392. of Article 15 of the Scottish 9. Works, 5:152. the Protestant doctrine 10. Ibid., 6:417. Confession; his doctrine of entire sanctification 11. Ibid., 12:394. reaffirms the early Reformation teaching on holi 12. “Christian Library,” p. 393. 13. Ibid., p. 399. ness as stated by Patrick Hamilton. 14. Ibid., p. 398. What do we learn about John Wesley’s theology 15. Works, 5:98-111. the Catechism from his “Revision”? The most significant thing is 16. See J. A. Macdonald’s Wesley’s Revision of Shorter (Edinburgh, 1906), pp. 51-60. the small number of changes Wesley made: out of 17. “Christian Library,’ p. 399. the 107 questions and answers of the Catechism, 18. Ibid., p.400. Revision.. 131-48. in only 10 of them. 19. See Macdonald, Wesley’s ., pp. Wesley made important changes 20. G. C. Cell, The Rediscovery of John Wesley (New York, 1935), While this is not meant to imply that John Wesley pp. 242-72.

OT WORD STUDIES______(Continued from page 60) Indeed, those who have not yet aimed at analyzing the text as a literary com able in any good seminary or college in this way continue posite from several sources, written and oral. library if you do not wish to order been “exodused” 3. R. E. Clements. Exodus. Cambridge Bible to live under oppression in many Commentary on the NEB. Brief but solid and them personally. kinds of Egypts. The function of the helpful. 1. Martin Buber, Moses. Harper Torchbooks, and E. Park. “Exodus” exodus story for all people is specifi 4. J. C. Rylaarsdam J. 1958. in Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1. The “Introduction” 2. Review and Expositor LXXIV, 4 (1977). cally the function of gospel proclama it is succinct by Rylaarsdam is useful because “The Book of Exodus.” tion; the Good News in this case is comments are and accurate. The exegetical 3. Moshe Greenberg. Understanding Exodus. that the God of the first exodus is also often very general. 4. G. E. Wright, “Exodus, Book of,” 1DB Exodus. Grand Rapids: the God of countless exoduses in 5. F. B. Huey, Jr. 2: 188-97. a good series every generation. Zondervan, 1977. This is generally 5. R. E. Clements, “Exodus, Book of,” IDBSup to own. 310-12. This article is recommended for its generally 6. Keil & Delitzsch on Exodus are updated bibliography. Many excellent commentaries on they are hard to excellent on the Hebrew text: 6. Charles D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ‘Eh available. I have chosen the Hebrew Exodus are use for anyone who does not handle yah as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradi some of those which I personally find alphabet and also quite out of date in areas of tion,” Hebrew Annual Review 2:101-18. helpful. No single commentary will interest other than textual. 7. Charles D. Isbell, “Preaching the Old on the 7. Umberto Cassuto. A Commentary Testament,” Preacher’s Magazine. Dec-Jan.- suffice for exegetical study of a bibli Press, Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes Feb., 1979-80, 36-40. cal book. Choose as many of the fol 1967. This volume is recommended because lowing as you can afford. the spirit of the author, an observant Jew of the previous generation, should be captured by In the coming issues, I shall survey anyone who loves the Scriptures. Commentaries significant key words which function 1. Brevard Childs. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Special Studies within the exodus narrative as con Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. This is the Here are several articles and other veyors of important theological in single most comprehensive work on the market longer works on Exodus which deal sights. in English. 2. Martin Noth. Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: with something less than the entire Westminster, 1962. This work is specifically book. Most of these should be avail- Author’s own translation.

63