I ran across an old article by John Piper recounting a fascinating exchange between two great Anglican evangelicals: Charles Simeon (the father of Anglican evangelicals) and John Wesley. I appreciated the graceful engagement between these two men of faith who held the Gospel in common but differed in other matters:
Simeon: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
Wesley: Yes, I do indeed.
Simeon: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
Wesley: Yes, solely through Christ.
Simeon: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
Wesley: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
Simeon: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
Wesley: No.
Simeon: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?
Wesley: Yes, altogether.
Simeon: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
Wesley: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.
Simeon: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.
Related Articles
8 users responded in this post
Interesting??? Was this this exchange early or in the later half of Wesley’s ministry?
I think maybe we confuse the ministries of Wesley and Finney. Finney started the decision, walk the isle theology Some consider Finney’s introduction of alter calls a modern phenomenon in the church(2nd great awakening???).
Didn’t Wesley embrace a form of Christian Perfectionism(Luther just sighed)?
Simeon was weak. The man to read is Augustus Montague Toplady. There was nothing graceful about Wesley’s animosities towards Toplady. Hate is the word that comes to mind. Toplday is accessible freely and downloadably at http://www.google. books.com.
Arminianism/Wesleyanism is, at base, anti-God. I speak of the theological system, not the poor folks lacking discernment about it.
For those ingesting the Catechism of the 1979 BCP, this will be hard news, since that isn’t even Arminian. It’s institutionalized, constitutionalized, and establishmentarian Pelagianism.
Saying Simeon was weak is a bit of a stretch. For heaven’s sake, Piper, no shy flower, praises Simeon. Rather, I think Simeon demonstrated a grace and respect for an elder brother in Christ all too often lacking in our current theological debates.
Philip, hate is a strong word. What is your basis for that? Wesley wrote, “Mr. Toplady, a young, bold man, lately published a pamphlet….Indeed, I have not leisure to consider that matter at large: I can only make a few strictures, and leave the man to be further corrected by one that is full his match, Mr. Thomas Olivers.” (Works, Vol. 10, p 370) Wesley also wrote what he perceived to be Toplady’s views. “The sum of all this is: One in twenty, suppose, of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will: The reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” (Ibid) That is Wesley’s difference with Toplady. No hate there.
Wesley’s general approach was,(to put it into my simplistic terms–my apologies to Wesley), “We don’t have to agree on every detail of doctrine, but if you love Jesus, as I love Jesus, then give me your hand.” That did not mean that Wesley was indifferent to differences in doctrine.
Anti-God? Interesting.
Toplady once refered to Wesley as “that pigmy on stilts.” Should give you an idea that Toplady’s critique might not have been quite as charitable as it should have been. I think the point to draw from Simeon’s interaction with Wesley is that you can feel deeply your need for redemption and have a poor theology. On the other hand you can check the box for all five points of calvinism, and still not feel deeply indebted to the free grace of God in the cross. As a Calvinist, I’m often convicted that many of my Arminian brothers show the truth of doctrines in their lives that I only show through my teaching. It is shameful to me to think that Wesley did much more for the church in his day (bad theology and all) than I will in my entire life time simply because he loved Jesus very deeply.
So what is the advantage of pointing out feuds and animosity between people, especially if they are no longer around? I have listened to every single one of Piper’s biography talks and being realistic about flaws so as not to discourage young leaders, well I can see that but otherwise? Why not take the Hebrews 11 approach and praise Sarah who by faith…(forgetting that she laughed at God and lied about it). I’m sure every last “pigmy on stilts” or other comment has long since been repented of.
John, although he can speak for himself, I’d bet your point was Steve’s reason for posting the post to begin with. It is a wonderful example of Christian charity that can exist between two people who love the Lord Jesus but disagree in their theological outlook. Iain pointed to this as well in his post.
If you click on the link to the full post you see this comment seeming to affirm this idea of charity:
“Simeon had little sympathy for uncharitable Calvinists. In a sermon on Romans 9:16, he said, ‘Many there are who cannot see these truths [the doctrines of God's sovereignty], who yet are in a state truly pleasing to God; yea many, at whose feet the best of us may be glad to be found in heaven. It is a great evil, when these doctrines are made a ground of separation one from another, and when the advocates of different systems anathematize each other. . . . In reference to truths which are involved in so much obscurity as those which relate to the sovereignty of God mutual kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion (Horae Homileticae, Vol. 15, p. 357).’”
I would doubt, though, that anyone repented of the first “pigmy on stilts”, let alone the every last one. Sarah’s laughter is not representative of a differing theological methodology. And the importance for today is substantial. Even in normal everyday life, one’s starting point will influence and may even determine their destination.
[...] look at this brief encounter (It is found here and here [...]