Opening Remarks and Argument One - Sufficient Grace
Proposing the arguments which seem to overthrow this assertion, of an irresistible or unfrustrable grace, necessary to the conversion of a sinner.
AND this I shall begin with some general considerations, as God wills.
I. That which is sufficient to cause any man to distrust, if not entirely to reject, this doctrine is this, — That the defenders of it are forced, by the evidence of truth, to grant what is inconsistent with their doctrine, and to assert an universal grace, which to all, excepting the elect, is really no grace, as v. g.
First, they grant, "that preventing grace, as it is given irresistibly, so likewise is it given universally to men, and that this initial and exciting grace being once granted, is never taken away by God from any man, unless he first of his own accord rejects it;" and yet they resolve the non-conversion, or not believing of all those who are not effectually converted into the want of means sufficient for their salvation, or, which is the same thing, into God's dereliction of them in that state of disability into which Adam's fall had cast them. And what grace is it then, to have that initial and exciting, grace which they cannot but reject, and which can never work faith and repentance in them for want of that farther and effectual grace which God will not vouchsafe to them, or that they have a talent put into their hands which they cannot but abuse to their greater condemnation, for want of farther talents which he is resolved to withhold from them?
Secondly. They grant, " that there are certain inward workings and effects wrought by the word and Spirit of God preceding conversion and regeneration in the hearts of persons not yet justified, which God ceases not to promote and carry on towards conversion, till he be forsaken of them by their voluntary negligence, and his grace be repelled by them; and yet that he intends to restrain his saving grace to his elect, and to afford means sufficient for salvation to them only." And why again, then, are these inward, workings and effects wrought in them by the word and Spirit, from whom God intends to restrain his saving and converting grace, without which they cannot but neglect and repel his former grace? Or how can he properly be said to carry on this work, towards the conversion of them, whom He has decreed to leave in an utter disability of being converted, or recovered from their undone condition?
Thirdly, that God doth very seriously and in earnest invite and call all those to faith and repentance and conversion, in whom by his word and Spirit he works a knowledge of the divine will, a sense of sin, a dread of punishment, some hopes of pardon; and yet that all these men, excepting the elect, are not converted through, a effectiveness in the grace of God to do it, or for want of means sufficient for their conversion or salvation; and because God never intended by these means salvation to any, but the elect, He having passed a decree of preterition on the rest of mankind, whom therefore he hath left under a necessity of perishing, since idem est pratermitti ac dimitti, ' it is the same thing to be omitted out of the decree of election, and to be left to perish ;' and who then can conceive how his word or Spirit should work in any other a hope of pardon? Or how can God be serious and in good earnest in calling them to faith and repentance, and yet serious and in good earnest in his decree to deny them that grace without which they neither can believe nor repent?
To call them seriously to faith and repentance, being to call them to salvation by faith and to repent that they may not perish ; and to pass antecedently a decree of preterition on them, is seriously to will they should inevitably perish. To think to relieve all this by saying, "God is serious and in good earnest in inviting these men to believe that they may be saved, and to repent that they may not perish, because he would save them if they would believe; he would preserve them from perishing if they would, repent," is vain. For if faith be the gift of God,' if He 'gives repentance to life,' and hath restrained both these gifts to His elect, and has left all the rest of mankind under a necessity to perish for want of an ability to believe and repent, because this ability was lost to them by the fall of Adam, then must not all these invitations made to them to believe that they might be saved, and repent that they might not perish, be only an invitation to escape perishing, and to obtain salvation upon a condition which His decree of preterition hath rendered it impossible for them to perform?
And can He then be serious, and in good earnest, who only doth invite them to use things on a condition which he himself hath decreed to leave them under an utter inability to perform?
These are such evident absurdities and contradictory propositions, that nothing but a strong and shining evidence of that which manifestly destroys their doctrine would force them to admit them.
To proceed now to the arguments which evidently seem to confute this doctrine:
II. ARGUMENT ONE – Sufficient Grace
And (1.) this is evident from those expressions of the holy scripture, which intimate that God had done what was sufficient, and all that reasonably could be expected from Him in order to the reformation of those persons who were not reformed; 'for what could have been done more, (HEBREW, what was there more to do?) for my vineyard, which I have not done in it? Wherefore then when 1 looked (or, expected,) that it should have brought forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? (Isaiah 5:4)
For does not this enquiry make it evident, that the means which God had used to make this vineyard bring forth good grapes were both intended for that end, and were sufficient, (though not effectual, through her perverseness,) to produce in her those fruits which he expected from her? If an unfrustrable operation on her were absolutely necessary to that end, must he not in vain have used all other means here mentioned to produce it, while that was not vouchsafed? Admit this supposition, and it demonstrably follows that this vineyard had not grace sufficient to answer her Lord's expectations; and if so, must He not unreasonably complain that she brought forth wild grapes, and more unreasonably expect good grapes, and chide his vineyard for want of them, and most unreasonably punish her for not doing that which he would not give her grace sufficient to perform, and which could never be performed by her without grace sufficient?
AND this I shall begin with some general considerations, as God wills.
I. That which is sufficient to cause any man to distrust, if not entirely to reject, this doctrine is this, — That the defenders of it are forced, by the evidence of truth, to grant what is inconsistent with their doctrine, and to assert an universal grace, which to all, excepting the elect, is really no grace, as v. g.
First, they grant, "that preventing grace, as it is given irresistibly, so likewise is it given universally to men, and that this initial and exciting grace being once granted, is never taken away by God from any man, unless he first of his own accord rejects it;" and yet they resolve the non-conversion, or not believing of all those who are not effectually converted into the want of means sufficient for their salvation, or, which is the same thing, into God's dereliction of them in that state of disability into which Adam's fall had cast them. And what grace is it then, to have that initial and exciting, grace which they cannot but reject, and which can never work faith and repentance in them for want of that farther and effectual grace which God will not vouchsafe to them, or that they have a talent put into their hands which they cannot but abuse to their greater condemnation, for want of farther talents which he is resolved to withhold from them?
Secondly. They grant, " that there are certain inward workings and effects wrought by the word and Spirit of God preceding conversion and regeneration in the hearts of persons not yet justified, which God ceases not to promote and carry on towards conversion, till he be forsaken of them by their voluntary negligence, and his grace be repelled by them; and yet that he intends to restrain his saving grace to his elect, and to afford means sufficient for salvation to them only." And why again, then, are these inward, workings and effects wrought in them by the word and Spirit, from whom God intends to restrain his saving and converting grace, without which they cannot but neglect and repel his former grace? Or how can he properly be said to carry on this work, towards the conversion of them, whom He has decreed to leave in an utter disability of being converted, or recovered from their undone condition?
Thirdly, that God doth very seriously and in earnest invite and call all those to faith and repentance and conversion, in whom by his word and Spirit he works a knowledge of the divine will, a sense of sin, a dread of punishment, some hopes of pardon; and yet that all these men, excepting the elect, are not converted through, a effectiveness in the grace of God to do it, or for want of means sufficient for their conversion or salvation; and because God never intended by these means salvation to any, but the elect, He having passed a decree of preterition on the rest of mankind, whom therefore he hath left under a necessity of perishing, since idem est pratermitti ac dimitti, ' it is the same thing to be omitted out of the decree of election, and to be left to perish ;' and who then can conceive how his word or Spirit should work in any other a hope of pardon? Or how can God be serious and in good earnest in calling them to faith and repentance, and yet serious and in good earnest in his decree to deny them that grace without which they neither can believe nor repent?
To call them seriously to faith and repentance, being to call them to salvation by faith and to repent that they may not perish ; and to pass antecedently a decree of preterition on them, is seriously to will they should inevitably perish. To think to relieve all this by saying, "God is serious and in good earnest in inviting these men to believe that they may be saved, and to repent that they may not perish, because he would save them if they would believe; he would preserve them from perishing if they would, repent," is vain. For if faith be the gift of God,' if He 'gives repentance to life,' and hath restrained both these gifts to His elect, and has left all the rest of mankind under a necessity to perish for want of an ability to believe and repent, because this ability was lost to them by the fall of Adam, then must not all these invitations made to them to believe that they might be saved, and repent that they might not perish, be only an invitation to escape perishing, and to obtain salvation upon a condition which His decree of preterition hath rendered it impossible for them to perform?
And can He then be serious, and in good earnest, who only doth invite them to use things on a condition which he himself hath decreed to leave them under an utter inability to perform?
These are such evident absurdities and contradictory propositions, that nothing but a strong and shining evidence of that which manifestly destroys their doctrine would force them to admit them.
To proceed now to the arguments which evidently seem to confute this doctrine:
II. ARGUMENT ONE – Sufficient Grace
And (1.) this is evident from those expressions of the holy scripture, which intimate that God had done what was sufficient, and all that reasonably could be expected from Him in order to the reformation of those persons who were not reformed; 'for what could have been done more, (HEBREW, what was there more to do?) for my vineyard, which I have not done in it? Wherefore then when 1 looked (or, expected,) that it should have brought forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? (Isaiah 5:4)
For does not this enquiry make it evident, that the means which God had used to make this vineyard bring forth good grapes were both intended for that end, and were sufficient, (though not effectual, through her perverseness,) to produce in her those fruits which he expected from her? If an unfrustrable operation on her were absolutely necessary to that end, must he not in vain have used all other means here mentioned to produce it, while that was not vouchsafed? Admit this supposition, and it demonstrably follows that this vineyard had not grace sufficient to answer her Lord's expectations; and if so, must He not unreasonably complain that she brought forth wild grapes, and more unreasonably expect good grapes, and chide his vineyard for want of them, and most unreasonably punish her for not doing that which he would not give her grace sufficient to perform, and which could never be performed by her without grace sufficient?
Comments
Those are very interesting thoughts, in your last 2 posts.
Looking forward to some further elaboration on this, if you plan to.
(i am back in school so yet to catch up with Wesley. Wesley is generally hard to read for me, i often lose the line of his thought and logic. Wish someone re-written him in a short,compact form as in "Wesley for Dummies: what he actually believed":)
Blessings,
Odeliya.
Once I get a grip on Wesley's view, I plan on writing up a brief summary. I am going through this just to understand Wesley's thoughts, as I am unfamiliar with his writings.
God be with you,
Dan
:)
Shana Tovah!
May the New Year bring you abundant God's blessings.
O.