Does Determinism Destroy Discipleship? Hubmaier & Wesley weigh in

"Some say the church is threatened by liberalism

and others say fundamentalism

but the real threat is non-discipleship to Jesus."

                                             - author Dan White Jr. via Twitter

As I researched early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier, I was struck by both the similarities between his theology and later Arminianism and Wesleyanism, and also his critique of Luther's determinism compared with later critiques of Calvinism. [1]

On determinism, both Hubmaier and Wesley addressed the issue pastorally, having each observed first-hand the consequences of this belief for discipleship and holiness.

Below, I have provided excerpts from each of these theologians, written more than 200 years apart, so that you can compare for yourself.

Hubmaier

About Hubmaier

Balthasar Hubmaier was one of the only Anabaptists of the reformation era with a doctorate. He was a contemporary to Luther, and was martyred in 1528 after fellow-reformer Zwingli had him arrested for his rejection of infant baptism.

Hubmaier as pastor-theologian

Upon seeing first-hand the resignation that resulted in Christians who had embraced Luther’s determinist theology, Balthasar Hubmaier wrote in his Apologia (1528), "The Sixth Article, That Not Everything Occurs by Necessity" (bold mine):

It is a harmful error, dishonoring to God and intolerable to the Christian faith, that everything must take place by necessity.

This error is so great and grave that it has resulted in much error and mischief among both heathen and Christians. For the sake of brevity the stories of the damage cannot be recounted here. This error is also specifically against God and his highest honor, for since God created reasonable beings, in heaven as angels and on earth mankind, he desired to be supremely honored and praised by them. Now, there is no greater honor man can render to God than to praise, honor and magnify him without compulsion and unforced, for God loves the cheerful givers (and not those who give by compulsion), 2 Cor 9:7. He therefore gave both kinds of beings a free and unforced will, as the Scriptures testify [...] we see clearly that in the first place God made man that he could and should, without compulsion and without force, honor and praise him and keep his commandments; God gave a person this choice and entrusted to him the power to choose water or fire, good or evil, life or death.

But that a person can choose, will and work, not only before the Fall, but also since the Fall on the authority of the divine Word in which God gives to those who will and believe the power and might to do and to accomplish what he has commanded them to do, I want to cite a number of testimonies from the Scriptures, which I have, of course, also taught and preached previously, and have published this particular doctrine in my second booklet on the freedom of the human will. The first Scripture follows:

"The Lord said to Cain, (1) 'Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not true, that if you were righteous, your sacrifice would be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching to manifest itself; but make it (the sin) bow before you and master it,'" Gen 4:6f. It follows that we have the mastery over sin and can master it.  

(2) "This commandment" (says God, the Lord, through Moses) "which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth, and in your heart, so that you can do it. See, I have set before you this day life and goodness, death and evil, I who today command you that you love the Lord your God and walk in his ways, and that you keep his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances, so that you may live and multiply.... But if you turn your heart away, and you will not obey, but fall away ... I declare to you this day, that you shall perish.... I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you this day life and death, blessing and curse, that you might choose life, that you and your seed may live, that you love the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him." [Deut 30:11-20] Here anyone who has ears can hear that we are able to will, perform, keep and fulfill God's commands without force and without compulsion.

(3) "Be attentive to these things, says the Lord God: 'Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death,'" Jer 21:8. It would be a false god that would offer two ways, knowing that we would necessarily have to take the one way. But he is faithful.

(4) "If you are willing and hear," God the Lord says further, "you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel against me, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken," Isa 1:19a.

He would be an untruthful God if the willing, hearing, and eating were not in our power. But he is truthful, therefore the error is untruthful.

(5) "He came to his own," writes John, "and his own received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to become children of God," John 1:11f. Here we see again that God has given us the power and the choice to become his children, or by our own wickedness to remain children of wrath. If we then become children of God there is no doubt that we can serve, honor and praise our Father out of love and without being compelled by necessity. Anyone who teaches differently misleads many people into indolence and despair through such ideas; for if all things happen by necessity, why should I do much praying, fasting, and giving alms; if God will have me, it will take place by necessity, but if he does not want me, then all my works are in vain. Here one sees now very clearly what great harm and evil have grown out of this false doctrine, as I have clearly set forth in my first booklet on the freedom of the will. But as Adam put the guilt on Eve, and Eve on the serpent, so we would also like to make a fig leaf apron for our malice, put the blame on God, toss our sins off of ourselves and put them on him, which is a great blasphemy, which will not help us escape divine punishment. Let every one know how to direct himself accordingly. (Balthasar Hubmaier, "Apologia" in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans & ed Pipkin & Yoder, p 532-34)

Commenting on this portion of Hubmaier's work, Dr Michael W McDill writes:

In Hubmaier’s day Luther was the Reformer who most persistently touted a variety of determinism by his denial of human free will. [...] Hubmaier was aware of Luther’s view of free will and had most likely read some of Luther’s works. Hubmaier’s vexation with the notion of the bondage of the will originated with those in his region whom he perceived as using the issue as an excuse for moral laxity. He was concerned about those in his own city who were pushing the same type of determinism, which some apparently took as license for moral slackness. His assault on Luther’s ideas was accomplished through his polemic against those near him who were denying the freedom of the will. 

Hubmaier had a pastoral concern for these matters. He did not want to see people succumb to a lazy or worldly, and ultimately despondent, sort of Christianity. (Michael W McDill, "Balthasar Hubmaier and Free Will" in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists (2013), Kindle location 3283)

Pipkin & Yoder comment on his other treatises, Freedom of the Will, I & II:

The denial of the freedom of the will had led to development of tensions in Nikolsburg, which he felt were based ultimately on half truths deriving from a perversion of the biblical perspective. The result was that one might conclude that since it is God who works in us the willing and the doing, there is no reason for Christians to attempt to live the disciplined Christian life. In the course of both treatises Hubmaier makes a study of an unusually large selection of biblical passages in order to prove the freedom of the will, without at the same time denying the roll of grace. (Pipkin & Yoder, p 426).

In Freedom of the Will, II (1527) Hubmaier comments on the resignation resulting from a mis-understanding of Romans 9.  He writes:

Do you not see how seriously all those err who say: "Aye, whatever I do, whether it be good or evil, is the will of God, for we are his lump of clay. He makes us what he wants." Yes, he has made of you a vessel of honor by pouring his holy Word into you and has given you the free power and choice to become his child, John 1:12. Since, however, you do not will, you make of yourself out of your own wantonness a vessel of dishonor. (p 482)

And in case you're thinking, "Sure, but God commands us to do things we can't do all the time", Hubmaier answers:

Whomever God commands to break his bread with the poor and does not believe that with the words, "break our bread with the hungry," God now gives him the power and strength to will and to do such, and still lets the inborn stinginess of the flesh remain as it is, does not recognize the power of the mouth of God, Isa 58:7.

[...]

Whoever knows what the new birth is will not deny the freedom of the will in the human being, John 3:5; 1 Pet 1:23; James 1:18; Mark 2:14.

As often as Christ said to a person, "Stand up and walk. See. Hear. Stretch out your hand. Be cleansed," he gave to the same the power to stand up, to see, to hear, to stretch out his hand, and to be cleansed. That must be or his Word will be like a human word, John 5:8; Luke 18:42; Mark 6:56; Matt 8:4; 12:13; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10. Whoever says that the flesh need not desire against his natural will, to do the will of the soul, which has been awakened by the Word of God, taps at the wall in the bright sunshine, Matt 7; John 7; Gen 4; Romans 8:13. [2]

A foolish lord it is who sets a goal for his people and says: "Go to it, run so that you win," when he knows all along that they are forged into chains and cannot run, 1 Cor 9:24.

Whoever says that wives cannot be obedient and subject to their husbands, servants and subjects to their lords, and that sin cannot be obedient to evil Cain, O you of little faith, Gen 4:7; Rom 13:1; Eph 5:22; 6:5f; Col 3:22; 1 Pet 2:13f; 3:1.

That would be a perfidious God who would invite all people to supper, offer his mercy to everyone with exalted earnestness, and would yet not want them to come, Luke 14:16ff; Matt 22:2ff. That would be a false God who would say with the mouth, "Come here," but would think secretly in the heart, "Stay there," Isa 55:1; Matt 11:28; John 1:12; Luke 15:22.

That would be a disloyal God who would give a human being grace publically, and clothe him in a new garment, but secretly would take it back again from him and prepare hell for him. [3]

It is a curse to say that God commanded us to do impossible things, Matt 19:17. For everything that is impossible in our strength is made possible to the believer through his sent Word, Luke 18:27; Mark 9:23; 13:11. Thus it was possible for Mary, a pure virgin, to give birth to a child, she who had never known any man, Luke 1:31. So much power does the sent Word of God have. ("Apologia", p 464, 465-66)

Later, Hubmaier adds:

Nevertheless, it is certain and sure that the crucified Christ wants all people to be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, 1 Tim 2:4.

We should listen to the incarnated God--thus speaks the voice of the heavenly Father out of the clouds [...] Matt 17:5; 2 Pet 1:17; Luke 9:35 [...]

It is a crazy foolishness of ours that we desire to know the secret will of God, and we despise his known will. (p 467)

You can read the rest of Hubmaier’s work in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, translated & edited by H Wayne Pipkin and John H Yoder (Find in a Library).

Wesley

More than 200 years later, John Wesley preached his sermon Free Grace (1740), coming to the same conclusions regarding the Calvinism of his day (bold mine): 

II. 

This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. 

A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. That these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and those into life eternal, is not motive to him to struggle for life who believes his lot is cast already; it is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably adjudged either to life or death. You will say, "But he knows not whether it is life or death." What then? -- this helps not the matter; for if a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die, or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is unreasonable for him to take any physic at all. He might justly say, (and so I have heard some speak, both in bodily sickness and in spiritual) "If I am ordained to life, I shall live; if to death, I shall live; so I need not trouble myself about it." So directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, -- to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat. 

1. As directly does this doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast from God. "O but," you say, "I suppose no particular man a reprobate." You mean you would not if you could help it: But you cannot help sometimes applying your general doctrine to particular persons: The enemy of souls will apply it for you. You know how often he has done so. But you rejected the thought with abhorrence. True; as soon as you could; but how did it sour and sharpen your spirit in the mean time! You well know it was not the spirit of love which you then felt towards that poor sinner, whom you supposed or suspected, whether you would or no, to have been hated of God from eternity. 

[...] 

IV. 

Fourthly. This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. And this it does, First, as it naturally tends (according to what was observed before) to destroy our love to the greater part of mankind, namely, the evil and unthankful. For whatever lessens our love, must so far lessen our desire to do them good. This it does, Secondly, as it cuts off one of the strongest motives to all acts of bodily mercy, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and the like, -- viz., the hope of saving their souls from death. For what avails it to relieve their temporal wants, who are just dropping into eternal fire? "Well; but run and snatch them as brands out of the fire.: Nay, this you suppose impossible. They were appointed thereunto, you say, from eternity, before they had done either good or evil. you believe it is the will of God they should die. And "who hath resisted his will?" But you say you do not know whether these are elected or not. What then? If you know they are the one or the other, -- that they are either elected or not elected, -- all your labour is void and vain. In either case, your advice, reproof, or exhortation is as needless and useless as our preaching. It is needless to them that are elected; for they will infallibly be saved without it. It is useless to them that are not elected; for with or without it they will infallibly be damned; therefore you cannot consistently with your principles take any pains about their salvation. Consequently, those principles directly tend to destroy your zeal for good works; for all good works; but particularly for the greatest of all, the saving of souls from death.

You can read the full sermon at UMCMission here, at The Wesley Center Online here, or in PDF with other sermons here.

Footnotes:

[1] Many Calvinists today would deny that their theology is determinism, preferring instead to claim the term "compatibilism" for their view, though one need only look at their statements on the topic to see this is merely a nicer veneer. As Dr Pinnock (himself a former Calvinist) once wrote of "adherence to determinist freedom", "he calls it compatibilist because it sounds better" but under this view "people are only doing what they have been programmed to do. There is no moral credibility in this move--the reprobate are set up to perish." (Perspectives on Election, p 62).

For more on this, see: A Theology in Tension, "Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil". For a helpful critique of determinism from within the Reformed camp, see “A Reformed Theologian’s Critique of Divine Determinism” at Roger Olson’s blog.


[2] Here, Hubmaier presents a view of prevenient grace which is very similar to what would later be known as Reformed/Classical Arminian view, that is, that "the Word is the instrument, the means used by the Spirit as a basis for the conviction, the persuasion, the enabling" (Picrilli). For more on the difference between the Wesleyan and Classical views, see my post: An Introduction to Prevenient Grace. For more on Hubmaier's view, see: Great Quotes: Early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier on Prevenient Grace.

[3] For more on this, see my post: On Assurance of Salvation and Calvin's "Evanescent Grace".

Related Posts:

Calvinism's Determinist Worldview: a "theology of resignation" Aug 17, 2015 ... Schelling (God and Human Anguish, p 59-72) speaks against a "theology of resignation," which results from the sort of implicit theological ...

Great Quotes: Early Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier on Prevenient Grace May 26, 2016 ... For although no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him, it, nevertheless, does not follow from this speech that all those come to Christ who have been drawn by the Father, John 6:44. ...

Did John Wesley hold to the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness? John Piper says "Yes".

Here is an excerpt from Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? by popular Calvinist pastor John Piper (the full book is available for free from the Desiring God website here), pages 35-36 & 37-38, bold mine:

The imputed righteousness of Christ has been a great cause of joyful worship over the centuries and has informed many hymns and worship songs. The theme has cut across Calvinist-Arminian, Lutheran-Reformed, and Baptist-Presbyterian divides. As we look at some examples of hymns and worship songs, I admit that it is possible to put a different, newer meaning on some of these words, but they were not written with the newer meaning, and, as a people, we would be dishonest to treat them as if they carried the new meaning.

“AND CAN IT BE”

(CHARLES WESLEY)

No condemnation now I dread;

Jesus, and all in him, is mine!

Alive in him, my living head,

And clothed in righteousness divine,

Bold I approach the eternal throne,

And claim the crown through Christ my own.

[...] 

We may take John Wesley for an example to support our claim that these songs are built on the historic understanding of Christ’s imputed righteousness, rather than on more recent reinterpretations. Wesley himself was passionate about this doctrine, and probably more so than anywhere else in his sermon titled “The Lord Our Righteousness” (1765). He is defending himself against attacks that he did not believe this doctrine. Part of his defense is to refer to the hymns he has published. He translated Nicolaus L. Von Zinzendorf’s hymn “Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness” and commented on it and the others he had published like this:

The Hymns . . . republished several times, (a clear testimony that my judgment was still the same,) speak full to the same purpose [of my belief in the imputed righteousness of Christ]. . . . Take one for all—

Jesu, thy blood and righteousness

My beauty are, my glorious dress: ’Midst flaming worlds in these array’d, With joy shall I lift up my head.

“The whole hymn,” he says, “expresses the same sentiment, from the beginning to the end.” He goes on in this sermon to make clear what his hymns and essays mean: “To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not.” [Note 15] 

From these few examples, we can see that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has not been experienced as marginal or minor in the worship of Christ. It has been explosive with revival power, personal comfort, and deep, biblically-rooted joy in worship.

Within footnote 15, on pages 38, Dr Piper adds:

Then, to make things as clear as possible, he [John Wesley] quotes from his own Treatise on Justification published a year earlier (1764):  

“If we take the phrase of imputing Christ’s righteousness, for the bestowing (as it were) the righteousness of Christ, including his obedience, as well passive as active, in the return of it, that is, in the privileges, blessings, and benefits purchased it; so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed. The meaning is, God justifies the believer for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, and not for any righteousness of his own.”  

Further, “. . . the righteousness of Christ, both his active and passive righteousness, is the meritorious cause of our justification, and has procured for us at God’s hand, that, upon our believing, we should be accounted righteous by him.”

Wesley’s view developed over the years on this issue, but he seems to have landed in the traditional Protestant position on imputation in the latter half of his ministry, as evidenced by the sermon “The Lord Our Righteousness” (cited above) and “The Wedding Garment” (1790).

Later still, Dr Piper writes, “John Wesley made the doctrine more and more central to his ministry over time” (p 43, note 4), and on page 123, at note 6 (bold mine):

John Wesley observed, “But as the active and passive righteousness of Christ were never, in fact, separated from each other, so we never need separate them at all, either in speaking or even in thinking. And it is with regard to both these conjointly that Jesus is called ‘the Lord our righteousness.’” John Wesley’s Sermons, Sermon #20, “The Lord Our Righteousness,” preached at the Chapel in West-Street, Seven Dials, on Sunday, November 24, 1765

Further reading:

• John Wesley, “The Lord Our Righteousness”.

More from BeyondCalvinism:

• Dr David Allen on the Double Payment argument's "Faulty View of Imputation";
• From Cage-stage to "Arminian Calvinist" or "Calvinistic Arminian": Charles Spurgeon's theological journey;
• Does a Wesleyan view of grace lead to a more missional worldview?.

Can 5-point Calvinism ever lead to a "great missionary movement"?

In The Forgotten Ways, Alan Hirsch writes:

In the study of the history of missions, one can even be formulaic about asserting that all great missionary movements begin at the fringes of the church, among the poor and the marginalized, and seldom, if ever, at the center.

It is vital that in pursuing missional modes of church, we get out of the stifling equilibrium of the center of our movements and denominations, move to the fringes, and engage in real mission there.

But there’s more to it than just mission; most great movements of mission have inspired significant and related movements of renewal in the life of the church. It seems that when the church engages at the fringes, it almost always brings life to the center. This says a whole lot about God and gospel, and the church will do well to heed it.

This got me thinking: I've criticized 5-point Calvinism in the past for appealing to the well-off and comfortable, and rarely if ever being adopted by those at the margins. 

If both are true, that Calvinism almost never appeals to the marginalized, and that all great missionary movements begin among the marginalized, has Calvinism ever led to a great missionary movement? Could it?

Of course I don’t mean to ask whether an individual Calvinist can be a successful evangelist; God can use anyone anywhere. What I question is whether the doctrines of Calvinism, particularly in their Piper/Edwards/determinist form, would ever appeal beyond those who are comfortable in society.  

Or perhaps another way to think of it, can Calvinists be successful at evangelism without compromising the basic tenants of 5-point Calvinism (TULIP)?

Calvinism in China

Look again at China as an illustration:

In May, 2009 an article appeared in The Guardian which discussed the growth of Calvinism in China.  The article noted:

Although Calvinism is shrinking in western Europe and North America, it is experiencing an extraordinary success in China. [...] but it's absolutely unlike the pattern in Africa and Latin America. There, the fastest growing forms of Christianity are pentecostal, and they are spreading among the poor.

But in China neither of those things are to be true.

[...] in China, the place where Calvinism is spreading fastest is the elite universities, fuelled by prodigies of learning and translation.

Another writer, Fredrik Fällman of Stockholm University, explains:

The phenomenon of "New Calvinists" in contemporary China is primarily a development in the big cities of Eastern and Central China, and most people involved are relatively well educated. [...] It is a multi-faceted phenomenon, but very much oriented to the elites in society, in that way, resembling the Cultural Christians of the 1980-90's. There is another similarity with the forerunners on the notion of influence. These groups cannot easily gain influence over the majority of Pentecostal and charismatic movements or the CCC/TSPM, but the important thing is to be right, to break the new and correct path.

In another place, Fällman adds, "Reformed Christianity may also appeal to the subconscious Confucian thought patterns and beliefs that linger among Chinese elite intellectuals in general."

This, of course, is unsurprising.  We would expect determinist theology to appeal to "elites", who live comfortably, insulated from the world's worst evils, and therefore have an easy time believing that the world is just as God intended it to be.

Are there any examples of successful Calvinist missionary movements?

In his article “How to Teach and Preach ‘Calvinism’”, John Piper writes:

Make Spurgeon and Whitefield your models rather than Owen or Calvin, because the former were evangelists and won many people to Christ in a way that is nearer to our own day.

If Whitefield and Spurgeon are the go-to models of successful Calvinist evangelists, could they be effective counter-examples to my suggestion? As noted above, I do not mean to suggest that individual Calvinists cannot be successful missionaries or evangelists; the question is whether their theology would ever birth a great missionary movement. Still, lets take a closer look at their respective ministries:


Whitefield

It's interesting that Piper uses Whitefield as an example when, on another occasion, Piper himself noted that other Calvinists at the time found Whitefield's Calvinism suspect because of his evangelism! Piper states:

The Particular Baptists [that is, “the Calvinistic Baptists, in distinction from the General (or Arminian) Baptists” (note 5)] did not like either of these evangelical leaders. Wesley was not a Calvinist, and Whitefield’s Calvinism was suspect, to say the least, because of the kind of evangelistic preaching he did. The Particular Baptists spoke derisively of Whitefield’s “Arminian dialect.”

While I do not know very much about Whitefield, I have previously noted Dr Brendlinger’s writings about him and Wesley in his book Social Justice Through the Eyes of Wesley:

Dr Irv A Brendlinger, Professor of Church History and Theology at George Fox University, notes two major areas of disagreement between John Wesley (Arminian) and George Whitefield (Calvinist):

1. “A major disagreement was over Whitefield's staunch position on predestination"; and  
2. "The other disagreement between Wesley and Whitefield was over slavery. Both men spent time in Georgia and observed slavery first-hand. While Wesley's attitude towards slavery was consistent--unequivocally opposed--Whitefield's view changed from opposition to support” (p 5).

To me, the second disagreement makes sense in light of the first: why would Whitefield fight against evil if he believed that God had ordained that evil for His greater glory?

More than just supporting slavery, Whitefield actually believed slavery could advance evangelism!  

Dr Brendlinger writes:

While Whitefield was a friend of Benezet and opposed the abuses of slavery, he was not against slavery itself. In fact, he lobbied for the introduction of slavery in the colony of Georgia and when it was legalized he became the owner of some fifty slaves on the land that housed his orphanage, Bethesda. His sentiments are seen clearly in a letter he wrote to Wesley in 1751.

[...]

Whitefield's position had changed from his earlier opposition to slavery so that now he saw it as necessary for the financial survival of his orphanage and a possible means to the conversion of Africans. He was deeply opposed to the slave trade and abuses within slavery, but felt it could be a workable and beneficial system if handled justly.

[...]

The form of predestination Wesley opposed could take a softer position on slavery because, in the context of theological determinism, a system [in which a slave owner could deprive a slave of all spiritual exposure] ...was irrelevant; God would work salvation in the elect regardless of circumstances"

Regarding John Wesley's evangelistic outlook, on the other hand, Dr Brendlinger writes (bold mine):

Because he believed the atonement is universal, it follows that all persons are potentially recipients of God's saving grace. Wesley was convinced that the most effective way of communicating God's love was through doing good works for ones neighbour. This is clearly seen in his sermon, "Free Grace," in which he stated that the doctrine of predestination (and limited atonement) destroys a major motivation for doing good to others.

[...]

The focal point for Wesley was that every slave was a potential believer and doing good for them as neighbours, acting in love, would be the most effective means of persuading them of God's love.  This clearly flies in the face of the evangelizing approach of others, such as Whitefield and the SPG, who believed that slavery, in spite of its brutality and cruelty, facilitated evangelism by exposing Africans to Christianity. There was no question that this aspect of Wesley's theology influenced his position. From his own actions on behalf of the slave, it is clear that the good works he envisioned as a means of evangelizing the slave included: helping the destitute slave, and especially removing the chains of slavery.

Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace helped lay a foundation for antislavery thought, his own and that of his followers, by addressing the nature of the slave (capable of experiencing a relationship with God), the nature of the slave owner and slave trader (they knew right from wrong and had a capacity for benevolence), and the nature of Christianity, which seeks to bring all to awareness of God's love and grace by doing good to others. (p 87-90)

He also noted the importance of belief in free-will to Wesley & Whitefield’s missionary movement and the societal change that resulted:

One result of Wesley's teaching was a general softening of the harsh Calvinism of the time. [...] He taught people to take responsibility for their situation, rather than acquiescing to theological fatalism. [...] Wesley's Arminianism encouraged people to share in the responsibility for their position, both temporal and eternal. [...] Rather than helpless victims, people could work to alter their own conditions and, even more relevant to social reform, they could work to alter the conditions of their fellows.

[...]

What Wesley taught in this regard was powerful not because it was new, although it was for many, but because he successfully proliferated such ideas. People believed them and acted on them. The number of people who so responded continued to multiply. The emotional and theological climate of the country began to change. In the early part of the eighteenth century, people tended to accept slavery as a reality of a fallen world and to challenge it theologically would be to doubt God's sovereign purposes. But by the latter part of the century, the views were very different; people viewed slavery as something that needed to be challenged theologically and abolished. Two facts make it reasonable to attribute the change in large part to Wesley: his interpretation (and application) of Arminius is completely consistent with this different way of thinking, and Methodism grew so extensively that his influence was felt throughout Britain and America. At the very least Wesley's work functioned as a kind of "leven" in society.

All of this, I think, tempers any suggestion that Calvinism contributed to the movement; rather it seems that Whitefield’s positive involvement was to some degree in spite of his Calvinism.

We also begin to see his attitude towards the marginalized; on the one hand, towards the orphan, but on the other, towards those held in slavery.


Spurgeon

Could Spurgeon's work in evangelism counter my suggestion that no great missionary movement will result from Calvinism?  I don’t think so.

In fact Dave Hunt notes, “especially in his later years, Spurgeon often made statements that were in direct conflict with Calvinism. His favorite sermon, the one through which he said more souls had come to Christ than through any other, was criticized by many Calvinists as being Arminian!” (What Love Is This?, p 38, bold mine)

Hunt later quotes AC Underwood who wrote that while “Charles Haddon Spurgeon always claimed to be a Calvinist...his intense zeal for the conversion of souls led him to step outside the bounds of the creed he had inherited.”:

His sermon on “Compel them to come in” was criticized as Arminian and unsound. To his critics he replied: “My Master set His seal on that message. I never preached a sermon by which so many souls were won to God.... If it be thought an evil thing to bid the sinner lay hold of eternal life, I will yet be more evil in this respect and herein imitate my Lord and His apostles.”

More than once Spurgeon prayed, “Lord, hasten to bring in all Thine elect, and then elect some more.” He seems to have used that phrase often in conversation, and on his lips it was no mere badinage. [...] The truth seems to be that the old Calvinistic phrases were often on Spurgeon’s lips but the genuine Calvinistic meaning had gone out of them.

J. C. Carlile admits that “illogical as it may seem, Spurgeon’s Calvinism was of such a character that while he proclaimed the majesty of God he did not hesitate to ascribe freedom of will to man and to insist that any man might find in Jesus Christ deliverance from the power of sin (emphasis added).” (A History of English Baptists, p 203-206, quoted in What Love Is This?, p 154-55, bold mine).

You can read “Compel them to come in” here.

Spurgeon himself admitted he sounded Arminian at times, saying for example, at the end of his sermon “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility” (bold mine):

Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God's teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.

In the same sermon he criticized Calvinists who hold to double predestination, saying (bold mine):

I believe the higher a man goes the better, when he is preaching the matter of salvation. The reason why a man is saved is grace, grace, grace; and you may go as high as you like there. But when you come to the question as to why men are damned, then the Arminian is far more right than the Antinomian. I care not for any denomination or party, I am as high as Huntingdon upon the matter of salvation, but question me about damnation, and you will get a very different answer. By the grace of God I ask no man's applause, I preach the Bible as I find it. Where we get wrong is where the Calvinist begins to meddle with the question of damnation, and interferes with the justice of God; or when the Arminian denies the doctrine of grace.

He similarly criticized Calvinists who teach limited atonement, on 1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaching:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." [...] My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. [...] So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word "wish" gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—"whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.

Even in the famous sermon where he declared “Calvinism is the gospel”, he criticized the doctrine of Limited Atonement where it is applied to limit the extent of the atonement (note, everyone except universalists hold that the intent and application are limited; that is, I hold the intent was to save all those who believe, and the application is only to those who do believe):

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.

With these examples in mind, can it be said that Calvinism contributed to his evangelism?  It seems that his views were often in conflict with the Calvinists of his day (and many of the Calvinists today), and his evangelistic zeal was even at the time criticized as being "Arminian".

One last thought

The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth:

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.’ (1 Cor 1:26-31, NIVUK).

It seems that there was a principle at work in the 1st century which, as Alan Hirsch noted, has remained true for all great missionary movements since. “This says a whole lot about God and gospel, and the church will do well to heed it.”

Related Posts:

• Irv Brendlinger, "John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery";
• Alan Hirsch & Sean Gladding, "Missional Culture and Ministry Training" (Seedbed);
• The Complete List of Dr David Allen's Chapter-by-Chapter Review of "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her";
• TC Moore, "Puritans and the Proof in the Pudding: Is Slave-owning Unrelated to Calvinism?";
• “The family secret”: when Calvinists all but deny Calvinism.