Content uploaded by Algae Salapan Densing
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Algae Salapan Densing on Nov 16, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ABSTRACT OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Bachelor of Arts in Theology
Mountain View College
School of Theology
TITLE: ORDO SALUTIS AND VIA SALUTIS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
SALVATION PARADIGM OF JOHN CALVIN AND JOHN WESLEY
Researcher: Algae Salapan Densing
Research advisor: Felixian T. Felicitas, MA, MTh
Date completed: December 2021
Soteriology is a diverse study, if not controversial, in Christian thought. Although
some distinctions are as old as Christianity, the vast majority believe that Jesus’ life,
crucifixion, burial, and resurrection made the redemption possible. Yet, John Calvin sees
justification and sanctification as two elements of connection between the believer and
Christ, which presuppose that one is fully achieved and the other is incomplete. The basis
of his ordo salutis (Order of Salvation) is congruent with the nature and condition of
God’s decree and absolute sovereignty. Contrastively, Wesley expressed called it via
salutis (Way of Salvation) that he emphasized in his sermons. Via Salutis distinctively
describes the nature and condition of salvation that elaborates justification and
sanctification more in the account of God’s love in restoring the image of God.
The study used comparative and theological approaches in determining the
respective views of Calvin and Wesley about salvation. Ordo salutis is discussed through
five points of Calvinism known as TULIP while Via Salutis is described through the
lenses of Wesleyan’s perspective known as ACURA.
The study concluded that Wesley’s via salutis is more theologically accurate and
correct than that of Calvin’s ordo salutis. But, Calvin’s paradigm is more comprehensive
because it clarifies that the motif of salvation from beginning to end is still the same. In
Calvin’s ordo, one will not be saved unless he or she is called and be elected. It is
significant to remember that it is not about repentance and faith that the person will be
saved. Rather, it is about God’s favour in bestowing His grace and decree through
predestination that one is elected. This is a huge contrast to Wesley’s via that states once
a person believes, he or she will be momentously justified and sanctified and at the same
time will be adopted as His children who are still having a will to lean on the saving state
or not and who are still in the process of living a sanctified life.
The theological implications of the study are the following: a therapeutic
predestination since it is governed by love; a compassionate grace since, both are forensic
and dynamic kind of grace; prescriptive atonement in a sense that God bestows it to those
who repented; and lastly, a wilful freedom since God gives a will that enables men to
possibly reject His calling.
Given the thorough analytical review, it is evident that the theological framework
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been in line with John Wesley’s, than that of
John Calvin’s. The Adventist belief of salvation has overlying paradigms with Wesley’s
via salutis, than that ordo salutis of John Calvin. The Adventist soteriological paradigm
was influenced by Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley; and was filtered through Ellen G.
White.
Mountain View College
School of Theology
ORDO SALUTIS AND VIA SALUTIS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
OF THE SALVATION PARADIGM OF JOHN CALVIN
AND JOHN WESLEY
A research paper
presented in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the course
RESEARCH METHODS IN THEOLOGY
by
Algae Salapan Densing
December 2021
Copyright © 2021 by Mountain View College Publications
All Rights Reserved
December 22, 2021
in
His time, and
His grace
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions ..................................... 4
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 5
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ................................................. 5
Methodology ................................................................................................ 6
2. JOHN CALVIN’S UNDERSTANDING OF ORDO SALUTIS ....................... 7
Historical Development of Ordo Salutis...................................................... 8
Five Points of Calvinism .............................................................................. 10
Total Depravity ........................................................................................ 12
Unconditional Election ............................................................................ 13
Limited Atonement .................................................................................. 16
Irresistible Grace ...................................................................................... 18
Perseverance of the Saints ....................................................................... 19
Ordo Salutis in Calvinism ............................................................................ 21
Summary ...................................................................................................... 24
3. JOHN WESLEY’S UNDERSTANDING OF VIA SALUTIS ........................... 26
Historical Development of Via Salutis ........................................................ 26
Five-Points of Wesleyan .............................................................................. 29
All are sinful ............................................................................................ 31
Conditional Election ................................................................................ 32
Unlimited Atonement............................................................................... 33
Resistible Grace ....................................................................................... 34
Assurance of Salvation ............................................................................ 36
Via Salutis in Wesleyanism ......................................................................... 37
Summary ...................................................................................................... 39
vii
4. COMPARISON, EVALUATION,
AND THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATION ......................................................... 43
Similarities ................................................................................................... 43
Dissimilarities .............................................................................................. 45
Adventist Hindsight ..................................................................................... 48
Totally Deprave ....................................................................................... 48
Redemptive Calling ................................................................................. 49
Atoning Priesthood .................................................................................. 49
Covenant of Grace ................................................................................... 51
Experience of Salvation ........................................................................... 52
Theological Implication ............................................................................... 52
Therapeutic Predestination....................................................................... 53
Compassionate Grace............................................................................... 53
Prescriptive Atonement ............................................................................ 53
Wilful Freedom ........................................................................................ 54
Summary ...................................................................................................... 54
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................................. 57
Summary ...................................................................................................... 57
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX 1: CANONS OF DORT ............................................................................ 63
APPENDIX 2: TIMELINE OF JOHN CALVIN .......................................................... 65
APPENDIX 3: TIMELINE OF JOHN WESLEY ......................................................... 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 69
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AA White, Ellen G. The Acts of the Apostles. Mountain View, CA:
Pacific, 1911
Appeals Wesley, John. The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and
Certain Related Open Letters, Bicentennial ed. Vol. 11 of The
works of John Wesley. Edited by Gerald R. Cragg. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1989
AsJ The Asbury Journal
BRI Biblical Research Institute
CalCom Calvin: Commentaries. Edited and Translated by Joseph
Haroutunian. LCC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1958
Canons of Dort “The Canons of the Synod of Dort, 1618-19.” Pages 571-92 in vol.
2.4 Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition of
Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era. Edited by
Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2003
CBPI Calvin, John. Commentary on Isaiah 49-66. Edited by William
Pringle. Vol. 4 of Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah.
Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007
CCE Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Edited and
translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007
CCEL Christian Classics Ethereal Library
CCRE Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era
CEPAH Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to
the Hebrews. Edited and translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids:
CCEL, 2007
CEPAR Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to
the Romans. Translated and edited by John Owen. Grand Rapids:
CCEL, 2007
CETTP Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus,
Philemon. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: CCEL,
2007
CGAJ Calvin, John. Commentary on John 1-11. Edited and translated by
William Pringle. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the Gospel According
to John. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007
CH Church History
COL White, Ellen G. Christ Object Lessons. Washington, DC: Review
& Herald, 1941
CRS Commentary Reference Series
CSEMP Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism
ix
DA White, Ellen G. The Desire of Ages. Mountain View, CA: Pacific,
1940
DIS In die Skriflig
DLGTT Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological
terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1985
DPCM Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Edited by
Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick H. Alexander.
Grand Rapids: RRL, 1988
DTIB Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by
Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005
EDB Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Freedman, David
Noel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000
EDT Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001
GC White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan.
Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1950
GW White, Ellen G. Gospel Workers. Washington, D.C: Review &
Herald, 1915
HSDAT Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology. Edited by Raoul
Dederen. CRS 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000
IFC Issues Facing the Churches
Institute Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T.
McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 Vols. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1960
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
JETS Journal of Evangelical Theological Society
JPT Journal of Pentecostal Theology
JRT Journal of Reformed Theology
JSPS Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies
JWT John Wesley’s Teaching
LAT Library of Adventist Theology
LCC The Library of Christian Classics
Letters Wesley, John. The Letters of the John Wesley. Edited by John
Telford. London: Epworth, 1931
LPT A Library of Protestant Thought
MH Methodist History
MR White, Ellen G. Manuscript Release. Vol. 14. Silver Spring, MD:
White Estate, 1981
MT Modern Theology
MM Ministry Magazine
NDC Kurian, George Thomas. Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity: The
Authoritative Resource on the Christian World. Nashville: Nelson,
2008
x
NDPCM Burgess, Stanley M. ed. The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and
Charismatic Movements. Rev. and expanded. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003
NDT2 New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic. Edited by
Martin Davie, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell and
T. A. Noble. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016
NT Notes John Wesley. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament.
London: Bowyer, 1755
OpQSupO John Calvin, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Edited by Edouard
Cunitz, Johann-Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss, 59
Vols. Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1863-1900
PD Perspective Digest
RC Roman Catholic Church
RevExp Review and Expositor
RRJ Reformation and Revival Journal
RRL Regency Reference Library
RS Revisited Series
RVJ Reformation and Revival Journal
Salvation Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology. Edited by Martin F.
Hanna, Darius W. Jankiewicz and John W. Reeve. Berrien Spring,
MI: Andrews University Press, 2018
SBET Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology
SC White, Ellen G. Steps to Christ. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1956
SD Studies in Dogmatics
SDA Believe2 Ministerial Association of the General Conference. Seventh-day
Adventist Believe: An Exposition of the Fundamental Beliefs of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. 2nd ed. Boise, ID: Pacific Press,
2005
SDABC Nichol, Francis D. ed. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.
Rev. ed. Vol. 6. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1976-1980
Sermon Wesley, John. Sermons on Several Occasions. Grand Rapids:
CCEL, 2010
SHCTh Studies in the History of Christian Thought
SHCTr Studies in the History of Christian Traditions
SLT Spiritual Leaders and Thinkers
SM White, Ellen G. Selected Messages. Vol. 1.Washington, DC:
Review & Herald, 1958
SR Stand to Reason
ST Systematic Theology
TC White, Ellen G. Testimonies for the Church. Vol. 6. Mountain
View, CA: Pacific, 1948
TO The Outlook
VEcc Verbum et Ecclesia
WDTT22 McKim, Donald K. The Westminster Dictionary of Theological
Terms. 2nd ed. Rev. and expanded. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2014
xi
Wesley Wesley, John. John Wesley. Edited by Albert C. Outler. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1964
WesTJ Wesleyan Theological Journal
Works Wesley, John. The Complete Works of John Wesley. Edited by
Thomas Jackson. 13 Vols. Albany: AGES Digital Library, 1996-97
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
1. Table 1: Soteriological Paradigm Similarities ..................................................... 44
2. Table 2: Soteriological Paradigm Disagreements ................................................ 42
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher would like to express his heartfelt gratitude to the following
people who deserved to be acknowledged:
First and foremost, to Jesus Christ, his True Friend, Brother, Redeemer, Mediator,
and Advocate for calling, saving, guiding, sustaining, and encouraging the researcher in
his pursuit of God's truth. To Him be the glory and honor, worship and praise forever and
ever.
To the researcher’s advisor and research professor, Pastor Felixian T. Felicitas a
great mentor who instilled to him the value of studying the scripture in a Christ-centered
and expository manner, a love of study, reading and learning systematically, abhorring
mediocrity, always aiming for excellence, and always reminding a continual prayer and
honesty. His notion, “Bathe your sermons with prayer” influences the researcher to
contemplate always on what to say and what to act when leading God’s church. His
teaching and pieces of advice are such a great help throughout the writing of this paper
and also to the researcher’s worldview and thought as a whole.
To the researcher’s panel chair, Pastor Jose Manuel S. Espero for the invaluable
guidance, time and effort that he extended to the researcher in finishing the paper.
To the panel members: Sir Dale P. Dariagan, Sir Criscel Leo F. Garilva, and
Pastor Pacifico M. Wacay Jr., for their insightful comments which polished and solidified
the paper as a whole.
xiv
To the old and new staff of the School of Theology, Pastor Clyde Sumatra, Pastor
Adamson Baliton, Pastor Dindo Paglinawan, Pastor Ultimino L. Rivera Jr., Pastor
Simeon Rodrigo, Pastor Jimmy P. Adil Jr., Sir Jonathan M. Sagala, and Sir Ruterson
Almocera, who influenced, honed, equipped and molded the researcher to finished his
study inside the portals of Mountain View College.
To the department staff of Information Technology Center, Oscar Vidal, Jay
Sedonio, Arwenn Berago, Renan Ignacio, Jay Ryan Guanzon, Glory Ann Villegas, Emie
Rose Daigdigan, Aldrich Mostrales, Ervin Lahoylahoy, Herbert De Real, Darryl
Antiquina, Samuel Villamor, Mae Ann Lumanta, and Aljay Sabinorio, for their support
and assistance while working in the department.
To the members and staff of Seventh-day Adventist Singles, Adventistang Bisaya,
Adventist Teams, Hope Channel South Philippines, C12-Emerald, Mountain View
College Singing Ambassadors, D’Advent Explorer, International Student Organization,
Master Guide Club, Heroes II Beta Testers, Kibawe Church, and Cyber Crossroads for
their prayers and ministerial support. Their support and kindness have been his source of
strength for his study and writing the manuscript.
To the evaluation team of the following scholarships: CHED for granting the TES
scholarship and Full Scholarship – Award No. FS101-066-17-10, DOLE for the two
thousand pesos subsidy, and Mountain View College (MVC) for the full-earned and
working scholarships. These scholarships paved way in finishing his study inside the
portals of MVC as well as in finishing the manuscript.
To the Ministerial Proper Program commissioning batch 18 named as “Servus
Dei” and Young Theologians Club (YTC) of the School of Theology, for shaping the
xv
researcher’s leadership skills: Pastor Jose Manuel S. Espero, YTC officers 2021-2022,
namely Ronel Kian Cablinda, Uriel Jesferdil Ingod, Shem Japhet Movera, Jasper
Mendoza, Renan Ignacio, and Donmar Cabillo who have been part of the researcher’s
success.
To all his friends and acquaintances: Mandhla Khanye, Ezra Mutsahuni, Mariano
Da Cruz, Joash Chavakula, Ricardo Mariano, Marceliano Buracho Jr., Madelyn Cabardo,
Reymon Sernal, Teody Agan, Alrich Mostrales, Van Thi Nguyen, Chamber Cerezo,
Gruwins Dayo, Harly Davidson Lumasag, Karen Kaye Gono, Jenny Lee Lagahit, Marbon
Estreba, Dave Ali Alviar, Pepito Bacolod Jr., Jedi Francis Felisilda, Janice “Jah-jah”
Ganzon, Yboon Rose “Igorotang Boonny” Tangid, Novy “Langgam” Punay, Mary Rose
“Brother” Adolfo, Malyn “Munggay” Camongay. Neshil Fe “Tata” Oniot, Jonalyn
“Bhaves” Marmito, Lucky Angelo “Alo” Mesmis, and others whose names are not
mentioned, for the memories they shared with the researcher that made his college years
more memorable. Special thanks also to Arniel Canopin for his support and evaluation of
the manuscript as well as the companionship, and encouragement.
To Mountain View College’s Ministerial Seminar organization, its officers, and
members for training the researcher in the field of practical evangelism.
To all his professors, friends, classmates, and colleague, for the valuable
encouragement, prayers, and friendship throughout his stay at MVC and in the writing of
this work.
To his family members: Mr. Domenisciano Cosep Densing, Mrs. Divina Ursabia
Salapan-Molina Densing, Quennie Dale Densing, and Kesiah Mae Densing, for the
support, care and encouragement.
xvi
The Black Desert guild and community, particularly the second through fourth
batch of in-game supporter, for their support, encouragement, and training of the
researchers chaplaincy and mentoring skills.
A special thanks also to Mrs. Catherine Blanco for the time that she allocated in
proofreading the manuscript.
Greatest thanks to the researcher’s sponsors: Mr. & Mrs. Wilfredo Densing, Mr.
& Mrs. John Densing, Mr. & Mrs. James Densing, Mr. & Mrs. Jude Densing, Mr. & Mrs.
Jason Densing, Mr. Ruben Milan, Mr. & Mrs. Jovan Talose, Mr. & Mrs. Pascua, Mr. &
Mrs. Ismael Salavaria, Mr. Narilzon Navarro, Mr. Godillo V. Garma, Jr., Mr. Jay
Sedonio, and Mr. Gerard “Boss G” Angao, who holistically supported him throughout his
stay in MVC with financial assistance, prayers, encouragement, care and thought.
Finally, the researcher would like to say a heartfelt gratias tibi ago to Ronaliza F.
Milan. She has been a real support, partner, critic, and motivation to finish this work. Her
affection and encouragement paved the way to finish the manuscript.
In Tempore Suo et in Gratia Sua
Cyberdasm
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Soteriology is a diverse study, if not controversial, in Christian thought.1
Although some distinctions are as old as Christianity, the vast majority believes that Jesus
life, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection made redemption possible.2 In salvation’s
justification and sanctification, “God’s initiative” played an essential role because
humanity is effectively aided by grace.3
Distinctively, John Calvin’s notions of justification and sanctification are narrated
into two elements of connection with Christ, one is fully achieved and the other
incomplete, which are also the basis of ordo salutis (Order of Salvation). Further, his
proponents agreed on this since non-major revisions were made in his writings.4 Ordo
salutis as a paradigm was not created in a vacuum since the Reformed had supported and
polished it during and after 16th century.5 Thus, ordo salutis, although controversial, was
1Gabriel Fackre, foreword to Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, by Robin A. Parry and
Christopher H. Partridge, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), viii-ix; Jay Newman, Foundations of
Religious Tolerance (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 123.
2Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,
2011), 412–13; See also Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1951),
2:399.
3George R. Knight, Sin and Salvation: God’s Work for and in Us, rev. ed., LAT 2 (Hagerstown,
MD: Review & Herald, 2008), 69; Thomas C. Oden, Christ and Salvation, vol. 2 of JWT (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), 58.
4J. Todd Billings, “John Milbank’s Theology of the ‘Gift’ and Calvin’s Theology of Grace: A
Critical Comparison,” MT 21.1 (2005): 90; A. T. B. McGowan, “Justification and the Ordo Salutis,”
Foundations 51 (2004): 8; Wilhelm Pauck, “Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion,” CH 15.1 (1946):
27.
5Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Edinburgh: Black, 2003), 239; DLGTT, s.v. “Ordo
2
accepted with nuances by its proponents, who argued, criticized and objected it; however,
they agreed that Calvin used a paradigm in soteriology that highlights God’s decree and
complete sovereignty.6 This development led the denunciation of the Remonstrants
against the Reformed ordo salutis that later on is known as the “five points of Calvinism”
or acrostically named as TULIP.7 These five axioms of faith were the summaries of
Calvin’s ordo salutis and the narrative events at the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 leading to
its canonization.8 For some contemporary scholars, this paradigm is often associated with
the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.”9
John Wesley, on the other hand, lived in two generations after Calvin and a
century after the Synod of Dort.10 While Calvin modelled the nature and condition of his
soteriology in God’s complete sovereignty, Wesley expressed it through his Sermons in
an opposite way, which is known as via salutis (Way of Salvation).11 Wesley’s condition
Salutis;” See WDTT, s.v. “Ordo Salutis;” J. I. Packer, “Regeneration,” EDT, 925; George M. Collins,
“Order of Salvation,” EDT, 802; See also Bruce A. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of
Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 36; Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, rev. and
expanded (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2008), 612.
6Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 98; Earle E. Cairns,
Christianity Through the Centuries, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 319; Robert A. Peterson and
Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 124;
McGrath, Christian Theology, 137; Michael S. Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011),
15.
7Horton, For Calvinism, 21-22; Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, 319.
8Horton, For Calvinism, 22; See Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty
Centuries of Tradition and Reform (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 459.
9Felixian T. Felicitas, Arminianism, Calvinism, and Adventism: Surviving the Labyrinth, Live, 3rd
Theological Forum: Arminianism and Adventism: Grace, Free Will, and Judgment (Valencia City,
Philippines: Mountain View College, 2021), https://fb.watch/5JZzIrK51D/.
10Don Thorsen, “TULIP VS. ACURA: Reframing Differences Between Calvin and Wesley,”
WesTJ 50.2 (2015): 100.
11Richard P Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon,
2013), 200; Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 421–22; DLGTT, s.v. “Via Salutis.”
3
of holiness was emphasized on justification and sanctification.12 The expressions of his
theological views were largely articulated in published sermons and letters.13 This led his
proponents to define it as “fluid way of salvation.”14 However, he was in conflict with the
reformed and others in which he described them as “esteemed religious or reasonable
men.”15 He understood that God’s love is more crucially important than God’s
sovereignty.16
Wesley did not discuss the five points of Calvinism or Arminianism in general,
nor he was a firm believer in Arminian theology, yet his thoughts were incompatible with
the “reformed notions,” and his standpoints were seemingly similar to Arminian in a
hairbreadth difference.17 Thus, his teachings were widely known today as Wesleyan-
Arminian theology. Wesley’s via salutis could be acrostic in so many ways among his
proponents.18 Unlike Calvin, Wesley’s proponents viewed his soteriology as not
systematically designed for academic purposes.19 Hence, this work would use the current
acrostic known as ACURA.20
12Randy L. Maddox, “Theology of John and Charles Wesley,” in T&T Clark Companion to
Methodism, ed. Charles Jr. Yrigoyen (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 31.
13Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen, Read Everything You Know About Evangelicals Is
Wrong:Well, Almost Everything (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2010), 14.
14Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN:
Kingswood, 1994), 416; See Isaac Hopper, “‘Christ Alone for Salvation:’ The Role of Christ and His Work
in John Wesley’s Theology” (University of Manchester, PhD diss., 2017), 156; Mark Royster, “John
Wesley’s Doctrine of Prevenient Grace in Missiological Perspective” (Asbury Theological Seminary,
DMiss diss., 1989), 12, core.
15John Wesley, A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (London: Strahan, 1745), 1.
16Donald Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice (Nashville: Abingdon,
2013), 44.
17Works 3:195–99; Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley, 205; Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 57.
18Oden, Christ and Salvation, 137–280.
19Al Stewart, Wesleyan-Arminian Theology : Revisited, RS 5 (PoBoy, 2020), 37; See Thorsen,
Calvin vs. Wesley, 23.
20Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley, 205.
4
As theologians or parishioners per se, we may be inlined as friends or have a
differed position of their notions but we are one in studying about making “God our true
friend” and saviour through learning His redemptive cause.21 Thus it is safe to say that
Calvin and Wesley have doctrines that are aligned with each other. As a matter of fact
Wesley affirmed some of the works of Calvin.22 However, in salvific methods they
differed. Therefore, the study focuses deeply on contrasting between the paradigm of
soteriology Calvin’s ordo salutis and Wesley’s via salutis. Further, the researcher
considering its historical developments would assist the readers in knowing its
importance in theological thought.23
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions
Calvin and Wesley’s viewpoints on salvation clashed. The differences rest in their
theological interpretations of the scripture. Henceforth, the paper sought to analyze each
of the standpoints by discussing the view of Calvin’s ordo salutis, presenting the view of
Wesley’s via salutis, contrasting and comparing ordo and via salutis in its attempt to
systematize the mentioned views, presents the theological implications with the Adventist
hindsight. The paper answered the following questions: (1) What is Calvin’s view of ordo
salutis? (2) What is Wesley’s claim of his via salutis? (3) What are the similarities and
dissimilarities between ordo salutis and via salutis? (4) What are the theological
implications of the study?
21Algae S. Densing, “True Friends,” in Never Forget, ed. Missi Ortega et al. (Caloocan City,
Philippines: Philippine, 2019), 213.
22John Wesley, “To John Newton [Londonderry: May 14, 1765],” in John Wesley’s Sermons: An
Anthology, ed. Albert C. Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), 210; Thorsen,
Calvin vs. Wesley, 16.
23Thorsen, “TULIP VS. ACURA,” 98.
5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to discuss and compares Calvin and Wesley’s
understanding on salvation. This study has five specific purposes: (1) to elucidate
Calvin’s approach of his understanding of ordo salutis; (2) to explain Wesley’s
understanding of via salutis; (3) to compare and answer the discrepancies of their
understanding especially on sin, election, grace, atonement, and adoption; (4) to evaluate
Wesley and Calvin’s soteriological paradigm with Adventist hindsight on salvation and
(5) to gain further insight by providing its theological implications to Christians who are
living in these last days.
Significance of the Study
This study is important because it gives the reader a straightforward approach and
appreciation of Calvin and Wesley’s paradigm of salvation. Together with its proponents,
it allows the reader to contrast Calvin and Wesley soteriological paradigm and its later
influence to Christian thought. It also helps the lay people to have a comprehensive view
and better understanding on salvation.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study was limited only to Calvin and Wesley’s paradigms of soteriology by
using all accessible resources that were available to the researcher, such as, libraries,
online books and documents, and digital applications that contain narratives and studies
about the ordo salutis and via salutis from a Calvinist and Wesleyan perspectives.
However, this paper was delimited only to Calvin and Wesley’s classical works and
academic publications given by their proponents.
6
Methodology
In dealing with the issues, a comparative and theological approaches were
employed. First, Chapter 1 provides the introduction, the statement of the problem, the
research questions, the purpose and the significance of the study, the limitation and
delimitation, and its methodology.
Next, Chapter 2 discusses Calvin’s understanding of ordo salutis, its historical
development and the proponents of the said view. It also includes the five points of
Calvinism known as tulip which are: total depravity, unconditional election, limited
atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Finally, the chapter ends in a
summary.
Then, Chapter 3 presents Wesley’s understanding of via salutis together with its
historical development and its proponents. It also consists of Wesley’s paradigm known
as Way of Salvation, which in the recent years, the acrostic acura was used to have a
contrasting point to tulip, which stands for: all are sinful, conditional election, unlimited
atonement, resistible grace, and assurance of salvation. Additionally, it includes the
chapter summary.
After that, Chapter 4 explains and provides answers to the problem of the paper
through comparison and theological evaluation. It contains the similarities and
dissimilarities of ordo and via salutis, the Adventist hindsight, and the researcher’s
evaluation. To summarize the paper, Chapter 5 culminates the paper’s argument. It
encloses the summary and the conclusion.
7
CHAPTER 2
JOHN CALVIN’S
UNDERSTANDING OF
ORDO SALUTIS
This chapter discusses Calvin’s understanding on ordo salutis. It primarily
considers how it was understood during his era. It is debated whether Calvin implied the
concept or it was even debated if this paradigm, the ordo salutis, existed during his time.
Some argued that this concept came from the corruption of earlier reformation
formulations.1
The historical accounts would also be appraised. This would help clarify the basis
of this work. The development of ordo salutis and its proper expression need to be
discussed in detail to understand how it was used during Calvin’s time.2 Aside from that,
the proponents of this paradigm in which it had been directed to Calvin would be taken
into consideration to shed light on the matter of the issue.
Primarily, philosophical works had been cited concerning Calvin’s work since it
also impacted how he wrote his soteriology, but nevertheless it is worth noting to avoid
anachronistic thought in the surface since Calvin had been adamantly open-minded to
reach others out in the theological field in some extent.3
1Gerrit C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, trans. Lewis B. Smedes, SD 4.1 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1954), 30–31.
2Cornelis P. Venema, “The Duplex Gratia Dei and the Organization of Calvin’s Institutes: Ordo
Docendi or Ordo Salutis?,” CSEMP (2013): 123.
3“Epistle to Simon Grynaeus,” CalCom, 74.
8
Historical Development of Ordo Salutis
In early modern Reformed theologians such as Heinriech Bullinger (1504-75),
Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Girolamo Zanchi (1516-90), and Augustin Marlorat
(1506-62) used ordo salutis or its variants (salutis ordo, order of salvation) in describing
the soteriological process of redemption.4 Muller suggests that various reformed
commentaries on Romans 8:29-30 produced between the middle decades of the 16th
century and the middle decades of the 17th century can be identified as having a basic
exegetical understanding of the text as golden chain, logical sorites, or series of casual
degrees or gradations.5 Another issue worth mentioning is that the ordo salutis as a
terminus technicus that did not emerge until the 18th century and it currently refers to
predestination, effectual calling, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification,
perseverance, and glorification, or some of its variance.6
In the early modern Reformed (1517-1700), the term ordo salutis was not used in
a precise way, particularly on how the post-modern technicalities saw it, although other
terminology should be taken into account when examining the question of the ordo
salutis, such as catena aurelia (golden chain) which were used to convey the same idea.7
It was during the first half of the 18th century that the Lutheran theologians namely, Franz
Buddeus and Jacob Carpov were first to coin the word “ordo salutis” which describes a
sequence.8 Even though ordo salutis and golden chain were similar (both of them are
4John V. Fesko, “Romans 8.29–30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis,” JRT 8.1 (2014): 41.
5Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of
Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 383.
6Fesko, “Romans 8:29-30,” 38; Don Thorsen, An Exploration of Christian Theology (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 265.
7Fesko, “Romans 8:29-30,” 38.
8Sinclair B. Ferguson, “Ordo Salutis,” NDT, 634-35.
9
paradigms), they are not identical with each other.9 Precisely, the same with Reformed
theology, which in this recent academic years is not the same during its early counterpart,
since the latter, its teaching had a profound contrast when talking to Calvin’s soteriology,
especially the doctrine of grace.10 This implies that in the recent years, reformed theology
does not only constitute of Calvin’s theology but it also synthesize other reformed
theologians which are proponents and contemporaries of Calvin’s theology or equivalents
referring to early reformation and church fathers. However the paper would only tackle
faithfully the Calvin’s ordo salutis.
In philosophical world during 16th century, there was a struggle between
scholasticism and humanism. Calvin’s theology was situated against the backdrop of 16th
century Scholasticism, which believes in human nature that can comprehend things as
they truly are.11 He was convinced that the Roman Catholic (RC) Church’s understanding
of human nature and others such as salvation, faith, justification, etc., were founded by
misreading of scripture that had been tainted with pagan philosophy.12 In his defense
against Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, Calvin defended that salvation is through justification
and justification is by faith; yet, works had its importance in soteriology although the
function of work is not salvific.13 He pleaded, “We deny that good works have any share
in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous.”14 This
9Fesko, “Romans 8:29-30,” 38.
10Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 26–27.
11Nicolaas Vorster, “Calvin on Human Reason,” DIS 48.1 (2014): 2.
12Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society
(Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2012), 207.
13Jean Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate: Sadoleto’s Letter to the Genevans and
Calvin’s Reply, ed. John C. Olin (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), 60.
14Ibid., 62.
10
suggests that there was a clashed between humanist and scholastic because RC was
known predominantly upholding Aristotelian or Scholastic notion in its doctrines.15
Meanwhile, Calvin was a full-pledge humanist in proving his methodical or
systematic notions both in biblical (grammatico-historical technique) and in theological
sense.16 As a humanist, Calvin was concerned with rhetoric rather than a static
philosophy.17 Yet it may also be argued that Calvin’s theology as well as his humanist
training and even his own personality, in which simplicity and clarity were pervasive
qualities, had similar influence.18 It is because during 1525 in Paris and elsewhere, a
more systematic, humanistic type of teaching became the order of the day.19 However, in
the recent scholarship, scholasticism has been under reviewed and was attributed as well
to Calvin.20
Five Points of Calvinism
One of the succinct expressions of Calvin’s soteriological-theological paradigm
was the defence of his followers against the Remonstrance.21 But even before Calvin had
already stabilized an ordo and wrote it in a systematic, theological, and comprehensive
15Vorster, “Calvin on Human Reason,” 2.
16“Faith,” Calcom, 229; William S. Reid, “Calvin and the Founding of the Academy of Geneva,”
WTJ 18.1 (2003): 16.
17John H. Leith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation of the Word and Its Significance for
Today in the Light of Recent Research,” RevExp 86.1 (1989): 37.
18Ibid., 38.
19Reid, “Calvin,” 3.
20Raymond A. Blacketer, “The Man in the Black Hat: Theodore Beza and The Reorientation of
Early Reformed Historiography,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor
of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma,
and Jason Zuidema, vol. 170 of SHCTr (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 229–30.
21Hugo Grotius and Edwin Rabbie, Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae Ac Westfrisiae Pietas,
1613, SHCTh 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 3; Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 22.
11
way in his Institute, yet this was even more systematically polished at the events in the
Synod of Dort on November 13, 1618 to May 9, 1619.22 This event marks the birth of
Arminianism as separate entity from the reformed movement since the synod convened
the Remonstrance as heresy and persecuted them.23
Aside from that, the Calvinist solidified their defence that led to the canonization
of the Five Points of Calvinism that is formally known as the Canons of Dort that is
known in these recent years, acrostically, as TULIP.24 The actual term tulip was
popularized by Loraine Boettner in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
and McAfee might be the one who coined the term.25 During that time the Canons of
Dort became known as summary of Calvin’s soteriology, or much favourably known as
the official reformed ordo salutis in 16th century wherein the foundation of its theology
was laid systematically and comprehensively by Calvin who was influenced by
Augustine.26 To be clear with this, without Calvin’s paradigm of soteriology since he was
known as pragmatist, tulip cannot stand on its own.27 It is worth noting that the reformed
during 16th through 17th century were pious to Calvin’s teachings in contrast to 18th
22Leith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation,” 36; Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2014), Nook, ch. 5.6.3, “Predestination.”
23See Jaroslav Pelikan, Valerie R. Hotchkiss, and Jaroslav Pelikan, eds., “The Remonstrance,
1610,” in Creeds & Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, vol. 2.4 of Creeds and Confessions of
the Reformation Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 549–50.
24Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley, 98; Erwin W. Lutzer, Rescuing the Gospel: The Story and
Significance of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016), 170; Cairns, Christianity Through the
Centuries, 319; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013),
Nook, ch. 43.2.1, “Calvinism;” David W. Cloud, introduction to The Calvinism Debate, IFC (Port Huron,
MI: Way of Life, 2006), 1.
25Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 2002), 21; Kenneth J. Stewart, “The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect,” SBET 26.2
(2008): 191; William H. Vail, “The Five Points of Calvinism Historically Considered,” TO, 21 June 1913,
104:394–95.
26Stewart, “The Points of Calvinismt,” 197.
27Leith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation,” 41.
12
century through the recent years although there is a shift in this 21st century. The internal
conflicts especially the osiander and arminian controversies were one of the main reasons
that ordo salutis was formulated and it led to a refinement of the reformed doctrines
especially in soteriology.28
The response of Calvin’s followers known as Calvinism against Arminianism
could be briefly summarized as God has a complete control of events, hence, man is
(1) totally depraved, (2) unconditionally elected with a (3) limited atonement, and since
he (4) could not resist grace, he (saints) is (5) bound to persevere till the end.29 In
Calvin’s thought, he was in accord with his proponents in this paradigm in a slight
theological nuance. In this study, an in-depth analysis of a structured reformed ordo
salutis was dibe. However, the foci of the study were based on Calvin’s Institute as
primary source and the Canons of Dort as supports in its paradigm. Further, this study
answers how Calvin understood ordo salutis through the aid of tulip.30
Total Depravity
Calvin agreed that there are three kinds of freedom, which are (1) from necessity,
(2) from sin, and (3) from misery. He attested that the first is inherent to man’s nature but
the other two had been lost because of sin.31 Calvin implied that free will is not sufficient
to enable man to do good works, unless God’s grace comes into rescue.32 Calvin, further
28Blacketer, “The Man in the Black Hat,” 229.
29See Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2013), 343; Cairns,
Christianity Through the Centuries, 319; Erickson, Christian Theology, ch. 43.2, “Differing Views of
Predestination;” Cloud, The Calvinism Debate, 1.
30It is worth mentioning that the reader must have initial knowledge of Calvin’s history since this
work will focus only on its theological issues. For a brief chronology of events, see Appendix 2, 65-66.
31Institute 2:2.5.
32Ibid., 2:2.6.
13
asserted that “The will is so deeply vitiated and corrupted in its every part that it can
beget nothing but evil.”33 Indeed his statement implies that the humanity is totally lost
and it is tantamount for having a free will without a value. Aside from being lost, he also
implied that the will is not enough for a person to choose.34 Since the will of man is lost
and cannot choose, the nature is also corrupted given that the fall of man was a voluntary
act in which he cannot do good works for God but his works are inclined to his own
passion and has redirected him as default to evilness.35 Further, it could be seen in his
writings that being lost is not due to the use of secondary causes but rather by God’s plan
since God is the principal causes-creator of things.36
In summary, Calvin thought that the fall was a voluntary act of man; and because
of this, humanity is depraved to do what is good and only knows how to bend to evilness.
Calvin’s statement did not just include the physical nature of man and its morality but
also the will of man. Thus, man’s depravity is en toto.37 It is the most striking statement
which also corresponds in the articles of the Canons of Dort.38
Unconditional Election
Calvin understood that election could be equated to judgment. Chapter 21 in his
Institutes affirmed that the notion. The title states, “Of the eternal election, by which God
33Ibid., 2:2.26.
34Ibid., 2:2.25.
35Institute 2:3.5. For Calvin’s stand on original sin, see 1:5.4; 2:2.15; 2:1.8; 2:1.7; 2:1.9; 2:1.3;
2:2.10;
36Institute 1.17.6; To read more on the discussion of Calvin’s theology of providence, see George,
Theology of the Reformers, 311-312.
37Institute 2:2.26.
38Canons of Dort 3/4.1; 3/4.2.
14
has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction.”39 Calvin asserted that the
gospel is not preached equally to all, in which he that it does not gain the same
acceptance with an equal degree.40 This diversity led Calvin to think that God decides
whom he would elect or reprobate since God knows who will accept the gospel.
Although Calvin did not formulated the notion of supralapsarianism (it was
formulated by Beza), his statement suggests that although the doctrine is not yet
formulated, the concept is implicitly present in his thoughts. Calvin presented that it is an
abused when the doctrine of salvation is effectually for all.41 On the writings of Paul in
Roman 9:3, Calvin commented that “Paul knew that his salvation was based on the
election of God and this election would not fail.”42 Calvin amplified in the above
statement in his commentary on 2 Timothy 2:19-21 that those who have been elected are
sealed by God.43 While Calvin’s language does not speak about conditional election, it
does refer to an elect who is known only to God and who has been sealed, or shut in. In
some instances, Calvin emphasizes it more deeply when he said, “It is no small matter to
have the souls perishes who are bought by the blood of Christ.”44 This notion suggests a
universal atonement but comprehensively it does not. Calvin believed that Christ election
is solely for the elect. Calvin even expounded his election when he commented
emphatically in Matt. 22:11-13 that when the person has not been clothed with Christ’s
righteousness (other term for justification, i.e. imputed righteousness), God will not bear
39Institute 3:21.1; See also 3:22.7; 3:22.10.
40Ibid., 3:21.1.
41Ibid., 3:22.7; 3:22.10.
42CEPAR, Romans 9:3.
43CETTP, 2 Timothy 2:19-21.
44John Calvin, A Selection of the Most Celebrated Sermons of John Calvin (New York: Forbes,
15
such dishonour and He will cast him out.45 However, in an instance that if one is
regenerated by the spirit of Christ, he or she will be forever guaranteed of the seal of
inheritance until God’s judgment happens.
Calvin understood that sanctification comes from Christ and this work of Christ
imparts eternal sanctification that is only for the elect, in which accordingly the efficacy
that blots out the transgression of the law.46 Aside from that, regeneration, repentance,
and conversion are generally equivalent to sanctification as Calvin noted that
regeneration is “the beginning of the spiritual life.”47 He also amplified that Christ is the
author of sanctification.48 Meanwhile, he asserted in one of his sermons about God’s
eternal predestination and election before being born that one could not choose God.49
And more than that, God’s grace was equated to predestination.50 It means to say that
before a person is born in this world, God selects whom He would elect by the virtue of
His sovereignty and of His grace. He commented in Matt. 22:14 that the text was
incorrectly interpreted.51 For him there are two types of calling: one is universal, in which
1830), 42.
45Institute 3:24.8.
46Ibid., 2:11.4.
47Institutes 2:3.6; Dawn DeVries, “What is Conversion?,” in How Shall We Witness?: Faithful
Evangelism in a Reformed Tradition, eds. Milton J. Coalter and Virgil Cruz (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1995), 32.
48Institutes 2:13.2.
49John Calvin, A Selection of the Most Celebrated Sermons of John Calvin (New York: Forbes,
1830), 84.
50John Calvin, Treatises on the Eternal Predestination of God, the Secret Providence of God,
trans. Henry Cole (Edinburgh: CrossReach, 2018), 39.
51Institute 3:2.11; 3:2.12.
16
God invites all men; and the other is a special call, in which God bestows it to the elected
believers only.52
Further, it is explicit that God is sovereign in all aspect of humanity according to
Calvin’s notion. Significantly, God designates those who should believe as well as those
who will be scattered throughout various parts of the world.53 To synthesize his notion, it
is clear that the salvation is for the elect only. However, he disagreed on the seed of
election, thus he thought about election after the call.54 His notions are echoed in the
surface of paragraph 6 of the first article of the canons of Dort.55
Limited Atonement
Calvin’s emphasis on atonement claims that it is only for the elect and is not
effectual for all. In his Institute, he proclaimed that “All are called into faith and
repentance;” however, the spirit of faith and repentance is not given to all, even the word
of the gospel is addressed to all. Thus, the gift of faith is rare. Although the election is the
parent of faith, faith is not general; hence, election is special.56 In its fullest sense, Calvin
asserted that only those who have faith are assured of election and could use the
efficacies of atonement.
At some point Calvin declared that God invites all men without any exception to
faith.57 However, in the same paragraph, he also implied that faith is not common to all
52Ibid., 3:24.8.
53CGAJ, vol. 1 at John 2:1-2
54Institute 3:24.11.
55Canons of Dort 1.6.
56Institute 3:21.1
57CGAJ, vol. 1 at John 3:16.
17
because only the elect could seek God by faith and faith could only be revealed by God.58
Hence this notion suggests that there are different kinds of faith and there is a special
faith that only the elect could use its efficacies. Since atonement and faith are interlinked
with each other, therefore, the salvation through substitutionary sacrifice could not have
been for everyone. Calvin, although, believes in Christ’s penal substitutionary death at
the cross and he understood it as appeasement of God’s wrath, it is also a triumph over
the devil wherein God held as victorious (Christus Victor).59 By application, it means
Christ’s atonement is for limited number of people, and the life that has been promised
universally are for all those who believe; yet, the only benefactor of this life is the elect.60
He further appealed that the wonderful effect of faith is to freeing the people from the
condemnation of eternal death and become heirs of eternal life because Christ’s death
atoned only the sins of the elect.61 Henceforth, in a narrowed sense this notion simply
implies that salvation is for all humanity in any race, gender, kindred and tongue but the
efficacy of Christ’s death which is the atonement is limited only for the elect. However
he is unsure and does not know who will or not be atoned for since only God knows
whom He predestinated.62
Claiming the benefit of salvation, Calvin posits that these are for those who come
to obey Christ in which they must do it by faith, a living faith as Calvin had different
notions on faith.63 He attested that the benefits of faith are only attained by those who
58Institute 3:22.10.
59Ibid., 2:16.6; 3:11.9.
60CGAJ, vol. 1 at John 3:16.
61Ibid.
62Institute 4:1.3; 4:1.2.
63Ibid., 3:2.12.
18
obey since for him one must imitate Christ’s obedience.64 However, Heb 5:17 asserts
atonement that is in contrast to Calvin’s idea that one cannot find atonement. He posits a
notion that nobody is disqualified from salvation except those who do not want to obey
the gospel of salvation through Christ alone.65 Aside from this, Calvin’s assessment
affirms that there is no seed of election because God calls the elect just as a shepherd
calls his sheep. He further schematized that calling prior to election.66 In this case,
Calvin’s notion echoed deeply in the canons of Dort where it emphatically implies that
the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is only beneficial for the elect whom God
predestinated.67
Irresistible Grace
One of the controversial sections of Calvin’s soteriology is grace. The scripture
tells us that, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I
will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Calvin used this text to support God’s
irresistible grace. He commented that the gospel is not for all unless God draws the
person, since faith does not depend on the will of men.68 Furthermore, it could be
synthesized that he used the philosophical notion of Aristotelian clauses. Aside from that,
his statement implies that the sovereignty of God determines, and the will of man who
does not have any role in God’s grace.69 In other words, man’s will is not about a free-
choice between good and evil, rather it is about free decision since the will is wicked.
64CEPAH, Hebrews 5:7-11.
65Ibid.
66Institute 3:24.10.
67Canons of Dort, 2.8.
68CGAJ, vol. 1 at John 6:41-45.
19
Now, when the person does not have a will for righteousness, Calvin implied that “God
must first approach him through his Spirit; as a result, not everyone is drawn; rather, God
bestows this grace to those whom he has chosen. And it is not violent either in a sense of
coercing men rather it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men who
were previously unwilling and reluctant be willing.”70
It is worth noting to say that Calvin denied the doctrine of operating and
cooperating grace and free will which were taught by his predecessors and that he defined
grace as a special grace where only the elect receives it through regeneration.71 Further,
everyone agrees that sin is a curse that affects everyone. Meanwhile, Calvin believed that
not all sinners receive God’s grace to repent.72 According to him, there was no way that
anyone could resist God since he foreknows who will be saved and not.73 It means that
only God knows who will receive grace. Thus, Calvin’s teaching of grace is irresistible
which echoed in the canons of Dort.74
Perseverance of the Saints
In Calvin’s thought, salvation is constant and continuous but not flexible.75 Thus,
if one obtains it, it will always and never cease in its availability. Aside from that, Calvin
believes that God begins his good works within us and completes them by confirming us
69Institute 2:2.7.
70CGAJ, vol. 1 at John 6:41-45.
71Institute 2:2.6.
72Ibid., 3:22.7.
73Ibid., 3:23.7.
74Canons of Dort 2.8.
75Institute 3:14.5; 3:24.7.
20
through perseverance.76 It could be understood that this perseverance happened after
adoption (engrafted in Christ or heirs) because it is forensic and a free gift from God.77
The basis of this adoption is through the covenant in which he even equated it as being a
remnant.78 His notion implies that general election is not possible because God does not
bestow the Spirit of regeneration from the start. This regeneration is important in order
for a person to persevere.
This sentiment of Calvin’s perseverance of the saints alludes a covenant theology
of unconditional election.79 He was so sure in his premise that the person who is once
elected is always saved.80 Even so, he amplifies it by saying that God seals His elect by
calling and by justification.81 He even further solidifies his notion on the perseverance of
the elect when he attested in his Institutes that salvation is always sure and certain.82
Seemingly, Calvin understands that God determines those whom He saved and He
defers the elect, at his own timespace, who should preserve from falling into God’s
judgement or in Calvin’s term unpardonable blasphemy.83 He also argues that at the
moment the person repents and believes, he or she is not yet totally saved.84 This is the
reason why regeneration works hand in hand with repentance. Until God forgives and
atones the person it is the time that the person is saved. Therefore, to comprehensively
76Institute 2:3.6; 2:5.3; 3:24.6.
77Ibid., 2:3.11.
78Ibid., 3:21.7; Cf. 4:26.15; See also 4:26.18.
79Ibid., 3:21.7.
80Ibid., 4:1.21.
81Ibid., 3:21.7.
82Ibid., 3:22.10.
83Ibid., 3:24.11.
84Ibid., 3:3.9. See 3:3.19.
21
understand Calvin’s notion, the elect could persevere because God, through calling,
regenerates the elect. This re-echoed blatantly on canons of Dort that assures the
believers of their salvation. 85
Ordo Salutis in Calvinism
Ordo Salutis as a term cannot be seen nor be read in the writings of Calvin.
Although it does not exist, the concept existed. Ordo salutis as terminus technicus was
best defined by Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) as “Describes the process by which the work
of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners.
It aims at describing in their logical order and in their interrelations the various
movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption.”86 This
implies that ordo salutis is a logical system rather than a chronological one. Aside from
Berkhof, this view could also be seen in the notions of Fresco and Frame.87
On the other hand, the late modern and post-modern reformed theologians are
incompatible with each other. For example, Nicholas T. Wright saw it in a different
perspective. He explains that ordo salutis was a chronological sequence, describing it as
“Lining up, of the events that occur from the time when a human being is outside the
community of God’s people, stuck in idolatry and consequent sin, through to the time
when this same erstwhile sinner is fully and finally saved.”88
85Canons of Dort, 5.3.
86Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),
415-416.
87Fesko, “Romans 8:29-30,” 37; John M. Frame, “Salvation and Theological Pedagogy,” RRJ 14.1
(2005): 59–60.
88Nicholas T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical
Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Edmonton, AB: Rutherford,
2006), 255.
22
The above notion leads to a question about what their basis are; yet, their main
argument is they rejected Calvin exegesis of Romans 8:29-30 and concluded that it was
just a crass proof-texting the text.89 And this was affirmed by Gerrit C. Berkouwer (1903-
96) when he argued that the Reformed (referring to John Calvin) incorrectly exegete
Romans 8:29-30.90 He implied that “Only the richness, ‘not the order,’ of the way of
grace comes to expression.”91 In his criticism, he reckoned that, “If the ordo salutis were
really intended to be a straight line drawn through a sequence of causal factors it would
be open to the same objections that the Reformed have against the RC concept of the
function of faith as a preparatory phase preceding justification or infused grace.”92 This
criticism implies that although he believed that Calvin was confused in his exegesis, yet
he does not believe the existence of ordo salutis in Paul’s writing of which Calvin
believed it as methodical.
Aside from Berkouwer, there are others who affirmed this standing, such as Otto
Weber (1902-1966) who disagreed that it consists of aorist verb; thus it cannot be
referred to a man’s stages of spiritual life;93 Karl Barth (1886-1968) on the other hand,
defined it as “Temporal sequence of religious processes” echoing to the orders of
chapters in Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.94 However, Barth rejected the
89Fesko, “Romans 8:29-30,” 37.
90Ibid., 38.
91Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 30–31.
92Ibid., 31–32.
93Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, trans. Darrell L. Guder, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983), 2:337–40.
94Karl Barth, The Theology of the Reformed Confessions, trans. Darrell L. Guder and Judith J.
Guder (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 139.
23
notion of Calvin’s general revelation.95 Meanwhile, Wolfhart Pannenberg and William B.
Evans believe that ordo salutis is incompatible with union with Christ.96 Evan’s further
implied that ordo “vitiated” the doctrine of union with Christ in the reformed theology.97
Thus, it implies that ordo salutis is incompatible with the doctrine of the union with
Christ for the modern and post modern theologians in which both were authored by
Calvin himself. In this case, for them it seems that Calvin had a big problem with his own
soteriology and christology.
Specifically, Calvin’s critics although they are proponents of some of his theology
were influential personalities during 19th century and onwards. However, this work
adamantly sided on logical method of interpretation of his ordo salutis based on a careful
analysis. This means that logical method is the proper way to elucidate Calvin’s
soteriological ordo or in other words the paradigm of the doctrine of grace (duplex
gratia)98 based on his Institute, commentaries, catechisms, confessions and theological
treatises.99 This work defined ordo as a catalyst, paradigm or a relationship in the
segment of grace and in soteriology as a whole.100 And it also sided on the notion that
regeneration comes first before justification.101
95Richard Jr. B. Gaffin, “Inaugural Lectures Biblical Theology and The Westminster Standards,”
WTJ 65.2 (2004): 168.
96Wolfbart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3:228–31;
Fesko, “Romans 8:29-30,” 39.
97William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed
Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 265.
98Institutes 3:11.1.
99Reid, “Calvin,” 16.
100Institutes 3.11.6; CBPI, vol. 4 at Isa. 59:20; OpQSupO 37.351-53; Marcus Johnson, “New or
Nuanced Perspective on Calvin? A Reply to Thomas Wenger,” JETS 51.3 (2008): 543.
101Joseph Chang Hyung Yoo, “A Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification for the Korean Context”
(University of Pretoria, PhD Diss., 2007), 377-378.
24
Summary
John Calvin was the greatest reformer in the 16th century but at some point he
was not universally loved. His Institute has been distributed and read far and wide from
all looks of Christianity. He championed reforms and founded a school to propagate
God’s words in young’s minds and hearts. He wrote in his Institute – a comprehensive
theological notion, commentaries, catechisms, confessions, and theological treatises
about God’s sovereign initiative for salvation.
However, ordo salutis as a term is not seen in the writings of John Calvin.
Although it cannot be found, the context is implicitly included in his writings as well as
in the early reformed theologians such as Bullinger, Vermigle, Zanchi, and Marlorat. In a
succinct definition ordo salutis is a logical flow of the process of redemption. Franz
Buddeus and Jacob Carpov were the first to coin the word ordo salutis. Even though
catena aurelia and ordo salutis are similar in some sense, they are not identical. It is
worth to mention that among the Reformed community Berkhof, Fresco, and Frame are
Calvinist whose beliefs are inlined with Calvin’s thought in view of ordo salutis.
In the philosophical world in the 16th century, there was a struggle between
scholasticism and humanism, and Calvin’s theology was situated against the backdrop of
16th century scholasticism. Calvin was a humanist by training in which he was concerned
with simplicity and clarity. It could be seen in his systematic approach both biblical
(grammatical-historical) and theological notions. In his defense against Sadoleto, he
defended that salvation is through justification and sanctification. And attested that works
are significant; but, their function in salvation is not salvific.
Evidently, Calvin fully understood that God is a sovereign creator and decrees
man’s salvation. In his notion, man’s depravity is totally depraved. His emphasis
25
congruently affirmed his notions on God’s decree and absolute sovereignty or
theologically known also as God’s providence. This notion echoed back and forth in his
teachings. Other than that, a man is not saved by his good works but rather by God’s
grace. However, Calvin denied conditional election since, for him, God has already
predestinated the elect and the reprobate, in other words double predestination. In his
accounts, he understood that God’s atonement and grace are only beneficial to the elect
although the reprobate could still know God and acknowledge his grace but it cannot be
atoned for since God already has selected those whom he must save from the start. This
treatment is often called as particular atonement.
Further, Calvin’s notion of grace adamantly emphasizes that God’s grace is
irresistible since the Holy Spirit’s impulse is powerful enough to be resisted. For him,
only those who are elected by God from the beginning of time could be drawn to come to
Christ. It is important to note that His grace is for all but the efficacy is only for those
whom he selected. Because, accordingly, if one could resist God’s grace, he or she would
be one of those whom God reprobates.
Furthermore, God sovereignty declares and decrees the elect by His divine
foreknowledge that they are saved. It is apparent in Calvin’s thought that salvation is only
beneficial for the elect since the efficacies of faith, grace and atonement could only be
used by them. God seals the elect by sanctification and justification. The sealing of the
elect was due to God’s invincible power that guards the elect and because of this the elect
could persevere and be saved. It is worth noting to say that Calvin stresses the importance
of the continuity of repentance as a lifelong journey and this imparts sanctification. As a
result, in Calvin’s view, regeneration amounts to sanctification in its modern variance.
26
CHAPTER 3
JOHN WESLEY’S
UNDERSTANDING OF
VIA SALUTIS
This chapter discusses Wesley’s understanding of via salutis (way of salvation)
though others perceive it still as an order of salvation and it is anachronistically does not
appeared in his writings. In order to treat the works of Wesley fairly, it is a must that its
historical development and proponents must be presented before contrasting his
paradigms to Chapter 2.
One may start directly to read Wesley’s five graces; however, his theological
development is crucial to understand fully his soteriology.1 These five graces include the
following: preventing, convicting, justifying, accompanying, and sanctifying grace.
These five graces are Wesley’s complete soteriology. Aside from that, he championed
using grace equated to God’s love, to the point of appending grace even in a non-saving
state. Thus, a segment of his biography is necessary because without a careful analysis
one may apply it incorrectly.
Historical Development of Via Salutis
Wesley’s theology was not created in a vacuum; this was possible through the
disciplines and views of his parents, formal education, extensive reading and study, and
1The reader must be acquainted with the life and works of John Wesley. For a brief record of
Wesley’s life and works, see Appendix 3, 68-69.
27
constant reflection.2 Aside from that the experience, understanding and practice of the
Christian faith were influenced by many expressions of its historic development.3 The
early biographical details of John Wesley’s life indicate quite clearly that he had
confused the issues of justification and sanctification and had sought to make some
measure of obedience or wilfulness in the form of rule and resolution of which is the
basis upon which he would receive the forgiveness of sins.4
Eventually, Wesleyan Methodism arose in reaction to sterile rationalism and
deism within the 18th century Church of England.5 Wesley (1791) was influenced by
strands of Catholic mysticism that stressed themes of pure love and perfect conformity to
Christ and by the older Arminianism.6 At some point in his practical ministry he was
constantly accused of being a papist although he emphatically rejected those claims.7
However, the doctrine of sanctification was the centerpiece of Wesley’s theology.
Appealing to Heb 12:14, Wesley held that the entire sanctification is a prerequisite for
final justification in the last judgment.8
2Stephen Rost, ed. “John Wesley,” in A Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching: Featuring the
Best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon and Others, eds., Charles Erlandson
and Stephen Rost (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), Logos, ch. 1, “The Conversion of John Wesley.”
3Christian History Institute, “John Wesley: Leader of the Methodist Movement,” CHM, 1983,
69:25–29; Lewis A. Drummond, The Canvas Cathedral (Nashville: Nelson, 2003), 410-12.
4Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, eds., Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates
(Leicester: Apollos, 2004), 181.
5Timothy W. Holgerson, “The Wesleyan Enlightenment: Closing the Gap between Heart Religion
and Reason in Eighteenth Century England” (Kansas State University, PhD diss., 2017), 44; Patrick S.
Franklin, “John Wesley in Conversation with the Emerging Church,” AsJ 63.1 (2008): 84; See Roger E.
Olson, “Eighteenth-Century Irish Deist Toland and English Evangelist Wesley Debate Faith and Reason,
God and Miracles,” in God in Dispute: “Conversations” Among Great Christian Thinkers (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2009), 289-308. Scribd; See Oden, Christ and Salvation, 2:64-66.
6Randy L. Maddox, “Reading Wesley as a Theologian,” WesTJ 30.1 (1995): 12.
7Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 97, 114; Maddox, “Reading Wesley as a
Theologian,” 8–9.
8Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 390–91.
28
Wesley did not see salvation as a forensic issue that needed to be shown in court
with a substantial body of evidence as many Calvinist does. He presented known events;
but this does not limit to one-time shot of salvation although he believed in instantaneous
salvation as well.9 Thus, Wesley’s soteriology was both gradual and instantaneous.10
Wesley emphasized the therapeutic nature of Christ’s redemptive work. His notion of
salvation certainly was a process – a healing, therapeutic, dynamic process known as via
salutis by transitions of preventing, convicting, justifying, accompanying and sanctifying
grace.11 These graces are not chronological or temporal nor logical but rather it could be
done in one moment once the person believes.12 Wesley debunk the hyper forensic
notion, for him it was never-ending, a confidence that God pardons those who responds.13
Some argued that via salutis is an earned salvation because the person cooperates
with God.14 Also the same movement amplified that salvation is not by having any
impartation of Christ grace.15 However, via salutis although admitted the impartation of
God’s grace “a similar of” infused grace as how the RC’s called it, this does not warrant
the sinner to boast; instead, it describes that when a person is sanctified and illumined by
9Letters 5:229; Cf. Works 11:421.
10Sermons, 2:223; Henry H. Knight III, “Love and Freedom ‘by Grace Alone’ in Wesley’s
Soteriology: A Proposal for Evangelicals,” JSPS 24.1 (2002): 58.
11Cf. Terrence Kardong, Benedict’s Rule: A Translation and Commentary (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1996), 5.
12Kenneth J. Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation: The Heart of John Wesley’s Theology
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), Nook, ch. 2.4, “Distinctions Pertaining to Repentance, Works, and Faith.”
13Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 840; See Thorsen, An Exploration of Christian Theology,
280.
14Richardson Kierkegaard, “Christ and Abraham,” in The Great Debate Today (Nutley, NJ,
Presbyterian & Reformed), 239.
15Roger E. Olson, “Grace and Free Will: A Parable,” Patheos, 9 August 2010,
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/grace-and-free-will-a-parable/.
29
God’s grace, the person is saved and in a pilgrim on the way towards perfection.16 The
emergence of the term in Wesleyan was introduced by Kenneth G. Collins and further
popularized it when he published the book titled The Theology of John Wesley.17
Moreover, Wesley’s primary focuses upon the doctrine of salvation relies on the
relationship between grace, faith, and perfection and holiness of heart and life.18 Wesley
was well known for his Way of Salvation or in theological term the Doctrine of Free
Grace which consists of preventing grace, convicting grace, justifying grace,
accompanying grace and sanctifying grace.19
Further, it is worth to mention that Wesley’s via salutis is a paradigm of his
practical theology through his experience and pastorship both in England and in the New
World. It is also a response of so many atrocities in the cities and in countryside during
his time. Such events were the primary focus of Wesley’s practical teaching which is to
encourage those who want to study the word of God.20
Five-Points of Wesleyan
One cannot directly recognize the five points as term on Wesley’s teaching. This
could only be done by a construct to have meaningful contrast with tulip. The reason for
this is that for the majority of his life and ministry, Wesley did not appeal to Arminius
16DLGTT, s.v. “viator”; Works 7:374; Paul W. Chilcote, Recapturing the Wesley’s Vision: An
Introduction to the Faith of John and Charles Wesley (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1954), 22-
23; Lowell J. Domocmat, Chosen & Free: Predestination of Arminius and Wesley (Santa Cruz, Ilocos Sur:
Maxwell Voice, 2013), 112.
17Kenneth Collins, “A Hermeneutical Model for the Wesleyan Ordo Salutis,” WesTJ 19.2 (1984):
24; Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 833.
18Works 9:348.
19John Wesley, John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology, ed. Albert C. Outler and Richard P.
Heitzenrater (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), 327.
20Ryan Giffin, “The Good Work of Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification: John Wesley’s
30
and Arminianism. Some of the Wesleyans posit a notion that Wesley’s writing is inclined
with practical divinity rather than the academic systematic counterpart.21 However, this is
understandable since Wesley was an evangelist albeit upon evaluating his writings
especially the Sermons of which one could find that it contains a theological salvific
paradigm although a practical approached were more prevalent in his writings. It is also
worth noting to say only that later in life Wesley was identified with an established
theological tradition of classical Arminianism.22
Wesley's identification occurred in the context of growing controversy with
Calvinists, especially on the accounts of perfection and salvation which lead to a
fragmentation of his Methodist society wherein his main contender was Whitefield his
bestfriend.23 Although Wesley and Arminius did not entirely agree point by point, their
theological views of divine predestination and free will were similar to the extent that
Wesley became the main Protestant proponent of Semi-Augustinian-oriented
Arminianism although the Arminian magazine was published after Whitefield died since
they both agreed in a truce.24
Further, this work agreed point by point on the works of Don Thorsen on how he
acronym Wesley’s via salutis. It may sound anachronistic since it is not the whole tenet
of his soteriology either theologically or biblically. However, its focal is to contrast the
Soteriological Explanation of Philippians 1:6,” AsJ 73.1 (2018): 122.
21Frank Baker, “Practical Divinity—John Wesley’s Doctrinal Agenda for Methodism,” WesTJ
22.1 (1987): 7; John Trinklein, “Holiness unto Whom? John Wesley’s Doctrine of Entire Sanctification in
Light of The Two Kinds of Righteousness” (Concordia Seminary, PhD diss., 2016), 48.
22Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley, 204.
23Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People, 98, 105.
24Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley, 204–5; Domocmat, Chosen & Free, 66; Heitzenrater, Wesley and
the People, 114.
31
paradigms based on his writings. In order to be consistent in contrasting his theology with
the counterpart of this study, the researcher applies the concept known as acura.25 Acura
was the recent acrostic used by Wesley’s contemporary proponents. In this way one could
easily understood Wesley’s via salutis.
All are sinful
Wesley’s notions address the scripture that all are sinful and that man by nature
does not know God; but, this does not employ how Calvinist understood the original
sin.26 He considered that all people after the fall only know how to bend to sin in which
in their heart they continually know “only evil.”27 Because man is self-idolatrous, his
own “self-will” denies any good but it only leads him to do what he wants to do.28
Further, Wesley underscored three points of his total depravity, which are the (1) love of
the world – he defines it as natural for man to love his own will;29 (2) the desire of the
eye – he defined it as the desire of pleasures of imagination;30 and (3) the pride of life in
which was defined as the most rooted disease in which man was craving for all ages.31
However, Wesley suggest a therapy for these diseases that he called therape a crux which
means in his own words that “God heals all our atheism by the knowledge of himself, and
of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of
25Thorsen, “TULIP VS. ACURA,” 97.
26Sermon 44:2.5.
27Ibid., 44:3.1.
28Ibid., 44:2.8.
29Ibid., 44:2.9.
30Ibid., 44:2.10.
31Ibid., 44:2.11.
32
God and of the things of God.”32 Although in Wesley’s notion man is totally corrupted,
there is still hope for those who genuinely repents and conforms to the will and word of
God through faith.33 He further solidified his claim that man’s nature is wholly corrupted
but by grace it will be renewed.34 To summarize his statements about man’s dilemma of
sin, it shows that man is totally depraved in all aspect of life. However, man has still the
will to accept God’s grace to be born again.
Conditional Election
In his sermon of Romans 8:32, Wesley noted that he believed partially on
predestination; but, there is a modification to how he understood it. He purports holding
on the election of grace that God elects a certain number of men to be saved, justified,
sanctified and glorified while those who do not will be perished due to their own
negligence leading to them to do evilness continually.35
Significantly, Wesley’s thought on election is not by predestination but rather by
God’s grace.36 He championed in his sermon in Romans 8:32 or known as Sermon 110:
On the Discoveries of Faith (1739) and Philippians 2:12-13 known as Sermon 85: On
Working out Own Salvation (1785), where he adamantly opposes the ideas of reformed
predestination. From the above presupposition, he implied that although he believes that
there is God’s decree, he did not decreed two types of people, one is for salvation and the
other is for damnation. He understood that God’s decree does not involve in determining
32Ibid., 44:3.3.
33Ibid.
34Ibid., 44:3.5.
35Ibid., 110:5.
36Ibid., 110:8.
33
who will be saved and who will be lost. He directly calls it “blasphemy,” but rather God’s
decree holds on to his character.37 For Wesley, God’s decree yields the strongest
encouragement for humanity.38 Thus, it is safe to say that Wesley denied the
unconditional election of Calvinism.
Unlimited Atonement
Wesley talks about atonement in his sermons. His notions suggest that faith and
love interlinked with each other in atonement. He further suggests that before the fall
there was no need of an atonement because it is just naturally present “when love was lost
by sin that faith was added, not for its own sake, nor with any design that it should exist
any longer than until it had answered the end for which it was ordained—namely, to
restore man to the love from which he was fallen.”39 In short atonement restores the lost
image of God in man. It is implied that Wesley’s understanding of atonement relates to
the backsliding Christian who are in turn fighting against all sin.40
One of the arguments that Wesley pointed out was that he was against with
Christian literal perfection that is when one is justified and initially sanctified.41 He
emphatically implied that a person is not perfect physically as without sin; however,
although they are not fully perfect still they are not exempted from God’s saving grace.42
He found refuge on the account of Paul in the Corinthians’ case while his opponent’s
37Ibid., 16:3.6.
38Ibid.
39Ibid., 36:2.5.
40Ibid., 13:3.8.
41Ibid., 13:3.10.
42Ibid., 13:4:1.
34
notions adamantly disagreed that the holy and unholy cannot coexist with each other.
But, in Wesley’s notion it is possible.43
Wesley forcefully rejects the idea of limited atonement. For him it is possible that
a person who believes in Christ “walk after the spirit” since when one accepts Christ he
will receive the atonement; hence, he is delivered from the guilt, “the being in sin” or in
other words delivered from the power of sin.44 In this position, Wesley denies
regeneration precedes justification since for him when one believes in Christ he or she is
a new creation, at the same time forgiven and atoned from all outward sins and the past
sins. However, sin does not fully leave, thus, one needs the efficacies of a constant grace
and a constant atonement. Yet, this does not employ that one will continue on sinning
since he or she will always be atoned. This basically means that living a renewed life is
resisting sin.45 It is an assurance that although sin still attempts to victimized the person,
his hope of glory is that Christ abides in him.46 Therefore, Wesley’s rest on the idea
solely and not on the sinless perfection rather on a perfection through spiritual maturity
although he had a view on sinless perfection known as “second blessing.”
Resistible Grace
One of the tenets of Wesley’s soteriology is grace. For him there are several types
of grace and these are preventing grace, convincing grace, justifying grace,
accompanying grace and sanctifying grace. Only the preventing grace is irresistible, a
grace that comes before the saving grace as a realization for the person to respond to
43Ibid., 13:4:1.
44Ibid., 13:4.4.
45Ibid., 13:4.13.
46Ibid., 13:3.7.
35
God’s love and walk away from a lower state of life.47 This grace functions the same with
Arminius prevenient grace. One of the best proofs is when he stated that “Perhaps we are
now resisting the last effort of divine grace to save us.”48 This notion suggests that grace
is freely given and whether it is saving or non-saving; yet, the non-saving grace could
only be ignored while the latter could be resisted. He pleaded, “And do not ye harden
your hearts and resist the Holy Ghost, who even now is come to ‘convince you of sin,’
‘because you believe not on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.’”49
Wesley rightly understood that salvation is through grace and it is not by man’s
own righteousness, by merit or works, nor by works combined with faith.50 For Wesley’s
notion, love and grace work together and he used it simultaneously.51 He even equates
grace to God’s love wherein the sinners find favour with God and he even implied that
grace is the source while faith is the condition for salvation.52 Wesley attested that God’s
grace is freely given for those who will accept God’s quickening, although the person
who receives it still could not be bound solely on God’s grace but could also fall short of
His grace.53 Wesley also assured that when the person receives God’s grace, it is as if
whole and not in part.54 Hence, in all things, God is in a complete control of grace and
even good works that the man does.
47Ibid., 85:2.1.
48Ibid., 13:3.13.
49Ibid., 13:1.12.
50Ibid., 110:1.
51Ibid., 110:2.
52Ibid., 1:3.
53Ibid., 89:6.
54Ibid., 110:3.
36
Assurance of Salvation
Wesley’s notion of assurance heard from his sermons hallmarks that God adopts
his believers. When God adopts, according to Wesley’s understanding, it is “the glorious
privilege” of the believers.55 It is worth noting that Wesley’s term of “Spirit of Adoption”
means having the virtue of sonship, as children of God. Meanwhile the assurance of
salvation in Wesley’s notion is that one must be baptized in the spirit because if one is
not then the person will lose the spirit of adoption.56 And the mark of losing is loving the
world since for him “the friendship of the world is enmity between God.”57 However,
even if one will be outcasted or become the children of the devil, they will still receive
again the “spirit of adoption.” Thereby they will be engrafted into the body as one
becoming again the children of God.58
Aside from that, the person who was justified and born again since both are
interlinked but not similar in some ways could resist the assurance of salvation offered to
them. Wesley calls it “backsliding.”59 Backsliding means a tendency of the flesh to lust
which is against the spirit and where the heart is proved to the conviction of evil.60
Further, Wesley’s notion assured that when the moment that the person believes, he is
saved regardless of how partial his repentance may be.61
55Ibid., 18:2.3.
56Ibid., 18:4.5.
57Ibid., 18:4.4.
58Ibid., 18:4.5.
59Ibid., 43:3.6.
60Ibid.
61Ibid., 5.4.5; 43.1.4; NT Notes, Luke 23:40; Appeals, 116-117; Works 10:309; See also Works
11:116, 453; Letters, 4:298; Kenneth J. Collins, John Wesley: A Theological Journey (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2003), 222; Cf. Paul F. Blankenship, “The Significance of John Wesley’s Abridgment of the
Thirty-Nine Articles as Seen from His Deletions,” MH 2.3 (1964): 35-47.
37
Via Salutis in Wesleyanism
Wesley does not use the term Via Salutis in his writings. However, when one
should study his sermons it is undeniable that his paradigm of salvation does not illustrate
its methods through chronological nor temporal stages but rather by momentous
succession. Sanctification, according to Maddox, is a process of spiritual maturation or
growth in Wesley’s view on via salutis.62 Charles Finney (1875) one of Wesley's
proponents incorporated the Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification. He argued that
just as the gratification of the lower nature involves an action of the will so is the holiness
resides in the right exercise of the will and it is embedded in the entire sanctification.63 In
its essence of his entire sanctification, it implies the “complete annihilation of selfishness
in all its forms.”64 Finney, like Wesley, claimed that believers can be completely
sanctified by a single act of faith (Instantaneous). Because Christians are called to
complete and permanent sanctification, it must be accomplished in this life by human
efforts aided by grace.65
Furthermore, J. Kenneth Grider, like Wesley, sees redemption as consisting of
two immediate acts of grace namely the first work of grace and the second work of grace.
In other words, “Whole sanctification is a sanctification, an entire cleanse,” as Grider
asserts. He further implied that there will no longer be any carnality or original sin that
depraves one’s faculties and inclining them to sin.”66 The carnal mind is removed
62Maddox, Responsible Grace, 157-58.
63Charles G. Finney, Finney’s Systematic Theology, ed. J. H. Fairchild (Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany, 1976), 362, 368.
64Charles G. Finney, Principles of Sanctification, ed. L. G. Parkhurst (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany,
1986), 52.
65Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 392.
66J. Kenneth Grider, Entire Sanctification (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1980), 112.
38
resulting to a “complete sanctification” experience.67 The crisis of entire sanctification,
on the other hand, does not hinder eventual growth of grace and heart purification. Grider
says that the first act of grace is required in salvation, whereas the second work is
important but not mandatory. Christians who fail to follow God's leading toward
complete sanctification, on the other hand, will lose their justification.68
There are two primary branches of Pentecostalism. The Holiness Pentecostalist
movement is the earlier, the minority wing influenced by the Wesleyans and this
movement augmented via salutis in their soteriology.69 The Assemblies of God and the
Church of the Foursquare Gospel belong to the latter, the majority wing. They arose
without reference to Wesleyanism.70
The Church of God, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Church of God in
Christ, and the Pillar of Fire Church are all Holiness Pentecostals with origins in the 19th
century Wesleyan-Holiness revival. They identify three instantaneous works of grace,
which are regenerating work of grace, sanctifying work of grace, empowering work. 71
Here the Holy Spirit takes full possession of perfected believers. Tongues-speaking
represents the initial sign that this Spirit-baptism has occurred.72 As a result, the Holiness
Pentecostals are a hybrid tradition that incorporates aspects of both Holiness and
Pentecostal theology.
67Ibid., 27.
68Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 393.
69Kenneth J. Archer, “Nourishment For Our Journey: The Pentecostal Via Salutis and Sacramental
Ordinances,” JPT 13.1 (2004): 79.
70Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 393-94.
71Pentecostal Discipline of the Pentecostal Holiness Church (Franklin Springs, GA: Board of
Publication), 13.
72R. P. Spittler, “Glossolalia,” DPCM, 3672.
39
Historically, the Keswick movement began meetings in England in 1875 as a
“Convention for the Promotion of Practical Holiness,” which was sparked by Holiness
teaching. The Victorious Life movement is Keswick’s North American counterpart.
Although it opposes the tenets of “sinless purity” or “perfect love,” Keswick’s theology is
comparable to Holiness doctrine. Sanctification occurs in three stages which are
positional, experiential, and complete or final sanctification.73
Further, a British Victorious Life advocate named Charles G. Trumbull (1941)
believed that redemption is a two-fold gift to be free from both the punishment and the
power of sin. He argued against the concept of sanctification as a progressive process and
amplified it that God does not give a gradual victory over the sins. For Trumbull, the
secret to leading a triumphant life is for a Christian to surrender fully and completely to
God in faith. One must not strive for spiritual victory; rather one must simply “Let go,
and let God!” because “Any victory that you have to get by trying for it is counterfeit. For
him if you have to work for your victory, it is not the real thing; it is not the thing that
God offers you.”74
Summary
John Wesley was a man of practical theology, a revivalist or evangelist as others
called it. In his early life, it could be attested that he loves his ministry, a ministry that
serves others not himself. Based on the data gathered through reading, he was well-off in
73J. Robertson McQuilkin, “The Keswick Perspective,” in Five Views on Sanctification, ed.
Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 155, 160-67; Steven Barabbas, So Great Salvation:
The History and Message of the Keswick Convention (Edinburgh: Scott, 1952), 55-56, 84, 99, 107, 115;
Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 396.
74Charles G. Trumbull, Victory in Christ (Philadelphia, PA: The Sunday School Times, 1959), 15-
16.
40
his own terms, well-educated and well funded by his family although they are not rich.
But amidst these, his family influenced him to embrace religion. Wesley was adamant on
the subject of holiness. He sees holiness as being in the pastorship and in the strict
methodical religiosity. After his education in Oxford, he went to the New World to
practice his profession. However something happened along the way, a storm that shaken
his religious foundation. He was awestruck to see the faith of Moravians who boarded
with him in the ship. These events led to his reflection of his religious enthusiasm since
he was confused with the issues of justification and sanctification. After the incident he
found refuge, renewed and reconverted himself full of hope along the way.
Wesley’s love to the poor is enormous. He invested much of his time and energy
to combat slavery and poverty. The movement that he made known as Methodism arose
as reaction to the sterile rationalism and deism of the 18th century. His primary focus falls
on the doctrine of salvation to understand comprehensively the via salutis between grace,
faith, and holiness of heart and life. This was due to experience and the environment that
lead him to formulate a practical way of salvation. Charles Finney and J. Kenneth Grider
were one of the finest proponents of Wesley’s practical theology. His practical theology
influenced other movement as well such as Pentecostal Holiness, Keswick Movement,
British Victorious Life Movement and later on the Seventh-day Adventist.
Wesley did not appeal to Arminius and Arminianism in any of his teaching.
However, due to the growing debate he established a traditional theological approach to
Arminianism. Wesley did not agree point by point to Arminius although at some point
both agreed on the theological views of divine predestination and free will. Wesley’s via
salutis have been framed into five points in a construct state to illustrate and to contrast
41
the five points of Calvin’s ordo salutis. This work agreed on the structures recently used
by Wesleyen which was formulated by Don Thorsen known as acura.
Evidently, his notion suggests that all are sinful. That is man does not know God
in his fallen nature. He even considered that all men were corrupted and only know-evil
in their hearts. Understandably, the self-will as he called it denies any good and it is self
sustaining. In his total depravity, he underscored three things which are the love of the
world, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. For him, this sinful state of man could
be resisted if he or she repents and submits to the will of God when responding to the
touch of the Holy Spirit.
Aside from that, Wesley understood election as conditional. He believes on a
single predestination that God predestined man to be saved; however, he did not
predestines man to damnation. It is man’s fault and choice leading his way to be punished
with everlasting destruction. He understood predestination but it is only a subset to God’s
saving grace and the basis of God’s election.
Wesley’s notion on atonement suggests that faith and love are interlinked with
each other. He attested that before the fall, atonement is not needed. He proclaimed that
the purpose of atonements is to restore man to love from which he was fallen. His notion
clearly emphasizes that when one accepts Christ he or she will receive his atonement. He
assured that Christ’s atonement imparts a notion of a will that could resist sin.
One of the well known doctrines of Wesley in the way of salvation is through
grace. He described it as a free grace. For him, there are several types of grace which are
preventing, convicting, justifying, accompanying, and sanctifying grace. He promotes
that grace could be resisted or rejected by the person who receives it. He also purports
42
that good works are the effects of God’s abounding grace. However, he denies the
irresistibility of saving grace albeit agreed that it applies to preventing grace.
Further, Wesley’s notion on the assurance of salvation is that God adopts his
believers as his sons and daughters. In his doctrine on adoption, Wesley appeals that it is
a glorious privilege. To be assured with salvation Wesley cues that a person must be
baptized in the spirit in order for the person not to lose the spirit of adoption. However,
when man falls short of God’s grace and walks again in the lowest state, he forfeits his
privilege; but, he could reclaim it again when he comes back to God. God’s assurance of
salvation in Wesley’s notion still resistible and could be rejected by the will of man.
43
CHAPTER 4
COMPARISON, EVALUATION
AND THEOLOGICAL
IMPLICATION
The agreement and contradiction between Calvin’s ordo salutis and Wesley’s via
salutis as soteriological paradigms shall be suitably illustrated in this section. This section
assists the reader in recognizing the differences and similarities between the two
opposing viewpoints. This study, which is backed by Seventh-day Adventists, broadens
the theological perspective.
Similarities
Calvin ordo salutis and Wesley via salutis have some similarities. The table
below summarizes and organizes the following information (Table 1).
Table 1: Soteriological Paradigm Similarities
John Calvin Ordo Salutis John Wesley’s Via Salutis
Sin Man needs to be regenerated to
combat sin
Man needs to response God’s
grace to combat sin.
Predestination God decreed people to be saved. God’s unconditional love
wants people to be saved.
Extent of Salvation
For all For all
Atonement Disaffirm universal atonement Conditional atonement.
Grace Saving grace is irresistible Preventing grace is irresistible
Justification By faith By faith
Sin and Predestination. Calvin’s and Wesley at some point of original sin
interlink with each other. Both of them affirm that man is sinful (depraved) and bending
on doing evil. However there is a caveat on how they agreed on this point although both
44
of them verify that man’s action on the fall was a voluntary act without any divine
intervention. Further, Calvin and Wesley confirm each other at some point in
predestination. Calvin posits that through God’s decree the elect will be saved. On the
other hand, Wesley argues that God predestined those who are justified, sanctified and
glorified to be saved. It means in the surface level of predestination both of them agreed
with each other.
Extent of Salvation and Grace. Calvin and Wesley believe that the extent of
salvation is for all humanity. It is very clear on the writings on Calvin that he agreed in it.
Meanwhile, on Wesley side, he is so sure that the salvation is for all who believe.
However, both of them disaffirm the universality of atonement. At some point both agree
that grace is irresistible. It is clear that in Calvin’s thought, the grace in which is
irresistible is God’s saving grace. However, looking deeper into Wesley’s thought, only
the preventing grace a non-saving grace is irresistible. Specifically, although this grace
could be denied by the person if he stays as a slave of the evil, God’s preventing grace,
which is a turning point to response the saving grace, is always available throughout his
lifetime even though he will ignore it.
Justification. Finally, Calvin and Wesley posit that justification is by faith. In
Calvin’s side justification is a repentance and imputation of Christ’s righteousness
although he denies infusion of grace. However, Wesley posits a notion that justification
takes away the guilt of sin by declaring sinners to be righteous.
45
Dissimilarities
These are the dissimilarities between the two paradigms and how John Wesley
would respond to soteriology of Mr. Calvin. In this section, the elements of TULIP and
ACURA are discussed thoroughly.
Table 2: Soteriological paradigm disagreements
John Calvin Ordo Salutis
(TULIP)
John Wesley’s Via Salutis
(ACURA)
Sin
Total Depravity
Humans are born sinful and
“depraved,” without possibility
of salvation other than God’s
grace. It is because their will is
not enough to choose God.
Hence, man’s depravity is total.
All are sinful
Wesley concurs with Calvin in total
depravity. Preventing Grace, on the
other hand, restores the image of
God in everyone. Humans can
respond to God’s offer of a saving
relationship, but only through
God’s grace since they have the
dignity (free will) to do so.
Election
Unconditional Election
God has sovereignly predestined
the elect to be saved without any
condition. Although God must
call first those whom He
predestinated.
Conditional Election
Election is conditional based on the
response of each individual to
God’s invitation to a saving
relationship. Further the elect has
the will to reject or accept the
election.
Atonement
Limited Atonement
The atoning sacrifice of Christ is
only efficacious or effective for
the elect. Limited atonement as
well was called as Particular
Atonement.
Unlimited Atonement
When the believers accept Christ,
they will be delivered from the
power of sin. However sin does not
fully leave, thus they need a
constant supply of the
efficaciousness of atonement.
Grace
Irresistible Grace
God’s Saving Grace is irresistible
to those who are part of the elect.
This grace is purely forensic – a
static kind of grace.
Resistible Grace
For Wesley, the grace which is
irresistible is the activity of
preventing grace. However,
although the presence and activity
of preventing grace cannot be
stopped, it can be ignored.
Nevertheless, this grace is
therapeutic – a dynamic kind of
46
grace. Thus, all have the freedom to
refuse God’s grace or to use its
efficacies continuously.
Assurance
Perseverance of the Saints
Those who are part of the elect
cannot lose their salvation. God
has predestined, called, and
sealed them to be saved. They
could not resist the impulsive
effect of the Holy Spirit, although
Calvin does not equate impulsive
to coercive. Thus, there was no
coercion when God saved the
elect. Further, God’s grace
through regeneration and
adoption supplied the elect to
persevere throughout the end.
Assurance of Salvation
It is possible to lose one’s salvation.
The term backsliding is a word that
Wesley employs. This means that
the person fall short of God’s grace.
In other words the person lives
again in his past experience.
However, when the person walks
on the higher state, he is assured
that he is in the privilege of God’s
adoption and in the state of being
saved.
Depravity. Calvin’s total depravity implied that all humanity is sinful since they
are born sinful. This sinful nature of man started wilfully at the fall. Because of this, the
person was totally depraved thus he only knows how to do evil. In all his ways he is
physically, morally, and spiritually corrupted. Wesley concurs with Calvin in this regard.
However, Wesley, on the other hand, reassures that the grace of God restores the lost
image of God in man. Now, the humanity can respond to God’s offer of a saving
relationship, but only through God’s grace. Further, Wesley deviated or emphatically
disagreed that a man’s hope has been crushed by sin. Instead, through the preventing
grace, God restores in humanity the freedom of will. In other words, although humanity
is sinful still they have the will to resist sin under God’s free grace.
Election. Since human beings can only choose evil, God by his pleasure and
sovereignty has elected spontaneously some to be counted as righteous, without any
conditions being placed on that election. God chooses not the other around through his
everlasting decree. Meanwhile, Wesley accepts the notion of Calvin that salvation is for
47
all. However he is rejecting the notion that only those who God selected could obtain
election. Wesley’s notion asserted that election is unconditional. It means that election
could be rejected by man. Although it could be rejected, the person could be elected
through the response of Holy Spirit’s conviction. However, Calvin rejected this notion.
For him through God’s sovereignty, decreed before the person being born be
predestinated to salvation or damnation.
Atonement. To Calvin, the efficacies of Christ atonement’s are limited only to
elect. Which means God predestined the righteous to be forever atoning for its sins
likewise the un-elected fall short on God’s eyes and could never claim any atonement at
all. Although in Wesley’s side the benefit of atonement goes to the elect but when the
believers accept Christ, he will be delivered from the power of sin. However, sin does not
fully leave; thus, they need a constant supply of the efficacies of God’s atonement. It
means to say that one needs to have a saving relationship with God. Therefore, Calvin
and Wesley both affirm that Christ atonement on the cross is a penal and substitutionary
act of God for the sinners.
Grace. Calvin’s notion of grace is that God extends it to human beings as a gift,
although the effect cannot be refused by those who God elected since it has been decreed
by God. However, Wesley denied that the saving efficacy of God’s grace could not be
resisted. It is understood that the activity of the preventing grace, a grace that comes
before the saving grace cannot be stopped but it can be ignored. Thus, it is safe to say in
Wesley’s notion that all have the freedom to refuse God’s grace a huge contrast to
irresistibility on Calvin's side.
48
Assurance. Calvin purports that those who are part of the elect cannot lose their
salvation. God has predestined them to be saved, and sealed them to persevere. Wesley
was adamantly differed with Calvin on adoption. His notion suggests that it is possible to
lose one’s salvation. Significantly, the term backsliding is a word that Wesley employs.
This means that the person falls short of God’s grace. In other words the person lives
again in his past experience. However, he could still be renewed and be refreshed by
God’s saving grace once the person who walks in the lower state believes he is saved.
Adventist Hindsight
Adventist has a unique paradigm of soteriology. However there are some aspects
which are common to both of them. This work addresses it through the paradigm between
Calvin and Wesley.
Totally Depraved
Adventist understood that a man was created in the image and likeness of God, a
steward of God’s creation and present in the divine council of God.1 Although God is
perfect and his creation was perfect, man has a will to remain in a perfect state and a will
to disobey God.2 Adventist argues that after the fall, the humanity bent into sinning since
sin produces guilt and alienation with God.3 Inspite of this, there is still a sense of dignity
left for the humanity. It means to say that the nature of man was fallen, marred, corrupt
and sinful of which the image of God is not completely gone yet and they are still God’s
1SDA Believe, 92-93, 98-99.
2Ibid., 100, 103; COL, 385; See also DA, 638.
3Knight, Sin and Salvation, 34; George R. Knight, “The Grace That Comes Before,” Salvation,
288.
49
representative on earth.4 Although at some point, Adventist agreed with Calvin’s total
depravity however in the deepest sense it deviated. Meanwhile, Wesley’s side works in
harmony but at some point there is a hairbreadth difference.
Redemptive Calling
Adventist does not see election as static or God only knows. In an Adventist
belief, a person must repent first; but that repentance is not from within but forensic.5 It is
worth noting that the Holy Spirit is the one who draws or calls sinners to Christ in order
for them to find repentance — a deep sorrow for sin, an unmerited favour from God.6
This basically means that God calls each one to repent and avail His redemptive call.
Aside from that, Adventist emphatically asserted that predestination does not equate with
foreknowledge.7 In Adventist perspectives, receivers of God’s redemption are individuals
who are led by God’s covenant of love and grace demonstrating humble dependence is
not a divine afterthought.8 Henceforth, if one will reject the Holy Spirit’s conviction he or
she rejects God’s election.
Atoning Priesthood
A cross is at the center of the Christian religion, and it is on that crucifixion that
the Son of God accomplished the salvation of the sinner.9 The atonement refers to Jesus
4John M. Fowler, “Sin,” HSDAT 12:262.
5SDA Believe, 135; SM 1:372, 390-391.
6Knight, Sin and Salvation, 16; Gordon Kainer, The Battle for You: The Life and Death Struggle
for Control of Your Soul (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014), 58.
7Fernando L. Canale, “The Doctrine of God,” HSDAT 12:137.
8Ivan T. Blazen, “Salvation,” HSDAT 12:274, 304.
9GW, 315; Woodrow W. Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding
God's love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald,
50
Christ’s death as a complete solution to the situation that sin had created.10 The premise
that God and humanity are ideally one in life and interests is a crucial underlying
foundation of the biblical doctrine of atonement.11 It is considered throughout the Bible,
from Genesis to Revelation, that God and fallen humanity should be in harmonious
relationship.12 The way that atonement works is unmistakably described in the New
Testament as a gift from God to sinners, flowing from His loving heart.13
God the Father loves the people and gives them salvation through His Son, the
parlance of atonement.14 “God’s atonement is a vicarious death.”15 It means that He did
not just only share the penalty but rather He was penalized on behalf of the people. As a
result, Christ died on the people’s behalf.16 Even while forgiveness is offered to
everyone, not everyone will be forgiven.17 Those who impute to Satan the miraculous
healing act of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, the so-called unpardonable sin, will
not be pardoned.18 Adventist believes that the atonement was made once and for all
however the effect is long lasting.19 The uniqueness of Adventist atonement is that it is
two-fold: (1) Christ has sacrifice for our sins on the cross and (2) His priestly ministry in
2002), 195.
10SDA Believe, 173.
11Canale, 12:161.
12Raoul Dederen, “Christ: His Person and Work,” HSDAT 12:198.
13Knight, The Cross of Christ, 105.
14SC, 12-13; Knight, The Cross of Christ, 118.
15Kainer, The Battle for You, 74; Frank B. Holbrook, The Atoning Priesthood of Jesus Christ
(Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1996), 82.
16SDA Believe, 202; Aecio Cairus, “Substitionary Atonement,” BRI 12 (2015): 22-24.
17Blazen, 12:282.
18Ibid.
19Ibid., 283.
51
the heavenly sanctuary, wherein “he applies for believers the salvific benefits of his
death.”20
Covenant of Grace
Adventist affirms some notions between Calvin and Wesley.21 Although some of
it was affirmed, Adventist has a unique understanding of grace called Covenant of
Grace.22 In Adventist understanding, it is an encouragement for Adam and Eve who had
fallen on Satan’s tricks.23 It is also not developed after the fall; hence God already had a
plan even before the fall of man, if man would fall short of God’s grace.24 However, both
before and after the flood, mankind rejected God’s gracious covenant.25 This means that
God’s grace is resistible.26 On the cross, Christ was plunged in an accused tree to ratified
God’s plan of the salvation of the humanity and for them be able to eat again in the living
tree that produces life.27 Before His death, He renewed once again the covenant of grace
and sealed it as an everlasting covenant of grace.28 Adventist is empathic that grace is a
gift and it is received by faith.29
20Norman R. Gulley, Creation, Christ, Salvation, vol. 3 of ST (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2012), 386; See George R. Knight, The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of
Adventism (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2008), 25.
21Knight, “Prevenient Grace,” Salvation, 292.
22TC 6:268; Knight, Sin and Salvation, 83.
23SDA Believe, 123; SC, 36.
24Canale, 12:177.
25SDA Believe, 107-109.
26See Cairus, “Substitionary Atonement,” 18.
27Canale, 12:178; “Righteousness” [Rom 3:20, 21], SDABC 6:1071.
28MR 14:370; R. A. Anderson, “The Atonement in Adventist Theology,” MM, February 1959: 12.
29Knight, The Cross of Christ, 154.
52
Experience of Salvation
The hallmark of the assurance of salvation in Adventist soteriology could be
found in the opening statement of its fundamental beliefs.30 Thus, in Adventist
understanding you already have experience of salvation when you accept God’s grace
through faith. Adventist emphasizes a Christo-centric notion of salvation.31 In Adventist
understanding apart from Christ there is no experience of salvation.32 And salvation is
only by grace alone.33 This experience includes repentance, confession, forgiveness,
justification, and sanctification.34 It is worth noting to say that this experience of
salvation is not static (as how Calvin implied) although at some point forensic but a
gradual progression.35 Thus it is safe to say that one does not only have the assurance but
he or she has experienced salvation when they accept Christ. At some point, Adventists
and Wesley had a similar paradigm of salvation, however, the Adventists influenced by
Ellen White emphatically denied Wesley's instantaneous sanctification.36
Theological Implication
There are four important theological implications derived from this study and
these are therapeutic predestination, compassionate grace, prescriptive atonement and
wilful freedom.
30SDA Believe, 133.
31Peter M. van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” HSDAT 12:61.
32Knight, The Apocalyptic Vision, 74.
33Knight, “The Grace that Comes Before,” Salvation, 289.
34SDA Believe, 134.
35Ibid., 134-135; See Woodrow W. Whidden II, The Judgment and Assurance, LAT 4
(Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2012), 73.
36COL, 65; AA, 560, 561; GC, 471; Dennis Fortin, “Sanctification and Perfection: The Work of a
Lifetime,” PD, 2020, https://bit.ly/34O82aB; Richard Rice, “Sanctification And Perfection: Another Look,”
53
Therapeutic Predestination
Predestination is a sovereign voluntary act of God (John 3:16). However his
predestination is governed with love. It works with his grace, it works with his mercy,
and it works with his justice (Ps 89:14; 10:14-18; 11:7). Although God is sovereign, He is
emphatic on saving and but not on judging the humanity (Ezek 33:11; 2 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet
3:9; John 3:17). His predestination is a wilful one that understand man’s dilemma of sin
(Rom 8:29-30; John 15:16). God’s promise of sacrifice predestined himself to save
humanity in order to predestined man to be saved on the account of the covenant of grace
(Eph 1:11-12).
Compassionate Grace
Grace is an act of God’s love for man (Gen 3:9; 12:4; Ex 3:4; Luke 15: 11-32,
19:10; 1 John 4:8; Matt. 22:37-40). It is a gift that contains large arrays of privileges (Eph
1:5; Titus 3:7; see also John 12:32; Titus 2:11-14; 1 Pet 2:9). With grace a person could
be restored in the image of God (Eph 2:8; 2 Cor 5:17). It is the gift that people need in
receiving and accepting God’s invitation (Rom. 5:6; 1 John 4:10, 19; John 6:44). It is the
only gift of God that cost His life (John 3:16). It is a precious gift that leads to a new life
and that experiences a saved life (Eph 2:5; 4:7; Titus 2:11). It is forensic and it cannot be
earned (Eph 1:7). It is therapeutic, but it can be rejected (Rom 6:16; Heb 12:15, 25).
Prescriptive Atonement
Atonement is God’s act of expiation on sinners behalf (Heb 9:22; 1Jn 2:2; 1 Cor
15:3; Gal 1:4). On the cross, Christ death pay’s the debts that all sinners incurred (1 Pet
MM, June 1984, 57:7.
54
3:18). His atoning death covers all races of humanity (Rom 6:10). His atoning death
covers all kinds of man’s classes in the society (1 Jn 1:7). His atoning death covers you
and me (Rev 1:5). Although his atoning death is free, never forget that it is not cheap
(Rom 8:3). His atonement is a prescriptive, forensic, and vicarious one, it means that only
Him could do it and apply it on sinner’s behalf (Eph 1:7; Matt 26:28).
Willful Freedom
God’s sovereignty created man in his image (Gen 1:26-27). Through His love,
man was created as a free moral agent (Gen 2:16, 17; Gal 5:13). It means that man has a
will that is free, free enough to cut off his loyalty from God (Ezek 18:30-32). Before the
fall, man’s free will revolves around God’s righteousness; but, when man falls into sin, it
bends to sin (Gen 6:5). Now, man’s free will is corrupted due to sin, and he is depraved
to be holy since in God’s sight his good works are just filthy rags (Isa 64:6). Although
man is corrupted both physically and morally, still he could be influenced by God and he
could resist sin if he will because it is God who initiates (John 6:44). By God’s grace
through faith, he could be link again and be privileged of what was once deprived from
him due to his voluntary act of estrangement from God (Eph 2:5). Through the Holy
Spirit a wilful freedom is a surrendered will that rejects a corrupted free will – a self-
centered will (Col 2:11; 2 Tim 1:7).
Summary
Calvin understood that ordo salutis is governed by God’s decree and absolute
sovereignty. He understood that man is totally depraved. Since man is depraved he needs
God’s grace; but, God’s grace cannot be obtained by a degenerate man. Thus, it needs
55
God’s intervention for him to be elected, and make man holy and righteous through
God’s atonement. However, he cannot be elected before God called the him. Because of
these through God’s complete sovereignty, He controls the events of time that He
predestined people to be saved. Calvin understood that a man does not know if he is
saved or not since only God knows this premise. Further, the atonement of God cannot
fail and those elected are link together with it. In these premise, man’s salvation is
secured since he could persevere to the end. In other words, ordo salutis as theological
notion suggests that once one is elected he or she will always be saved because God
predestinated him or her from the start. This is affirmed by calling them through the
mighty impulse of the Holy Spirit. And after God bestows His grace, the person will be
regenerated and before being saved; however, if they will not find any favour in God’s
sight they are belong to the reprobated.
Wesley, on the other understood that his via salutis is governed by God’s love. He
underscored God’s love with God’s grace. He understood that man was all sinful, totally
depraved both morally and physically. However, God’s grace was abundant and abundant
enough to reach those corrupted hearts. In Wesley’s notion, God predestined the
humanity to be saved. Accordingly, he does not predestined others to damnation. It is
man’s fault for doing an apostasy. In his notion, although man is totally corrupted both
spiritually and physically still he has the will to accept the abundance of God’s
preventing grace – a grace which cannot save but can lead to justifying grace which
saved and renewed the life both instantaneously and gradually by the sanctifying grace.
He understood that without grace there will be no election, atonement and assurance of
salvation. Thus, the person must have faith and accept God’s grace which is resistible in
56
order for him to be elected and be adopted as sons and daughters of God. In this way, his
salvation is guaranteed.
Similarly, Calvin and Wesley both agreed at some points but differed in thought.
They believe in justification by faith and affirm that their theology comes from the word
of God. However, they differed in their interpretations and applications.
57
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This section summarizes the chapters and gives conclusion of the study for John
Calvin and John Wesley’s paradigm of soteriology.
Summary
Calvin and Wesley are pillars of their respective movements. Both of them have
affirmed that their teachings are coming from the word of God. They have interesting and
insightful interpretations that based on their academic rearings despite the difference in
their respective goals in their movements as well as the focus of their message and
recipients.
In the chapter 1, the issue between ordo salutis and via salutis was tackled. It
involves how the work could be used, the questions that guide the work and how these
nuance of soteriology are contrasted. It also includes how this study is beneficial to both
theologians and lay personalities. The main point and focus of the study are to contrast
between the paradigms of soteriology of John Calvin and John Wesley.
Chapter 2 extends how John Calvin understood ordo salutis. The chapter
proposed that Calvin also use an ordo docendi in his ordo salutis which means that in his
theology regeneration comes first before justification. It is also well understood in his
notion that regeneration and predestination are the overarching thoughts that hallmarks
his soteriology. Calvin’s notion overemphasizes God’s decree and absolute sovereignty.
58
In his ordo salutis, God governed it by His decree and absolute sovereignty. He argued
that God predestinated man to be saved and predestinated others to reprobation because
God controls of the events and time. He posits a notion that the will of man is not enough
to decide in choosing God because man voluntarily gives up His will at the fall.
Meanwhile Calvin accepts the covenant of adoption although he did not accept
the seed of election. For him, those people who God predestinated to salvation are not yet
elected unless God calls him. If God calls He sends His Spirit to draw those reluctant
sinners to be elected; but, the caveat is that only God knows if the person is elected or
not. Most of the time, sin still clings to the elect; thus, it needs regeneration in the
person’s part in which the efficacies of atonement the living faith and special grace is
supplied to the person in order to appease God’s wrath for sin. Since, for Calvin, God is a
just judge and His holiness cannot be marred by sin. By then those who are elected are
the one and only personalities that could be atoned. This election will not fail as well;
thus once the person is elected then he will always be elected and could not resist God’s
grace.
In summary, the logical flow for the person to be elected he must be
predestinated, in layman’s term; he must found favour in God’s eyes. Next, God calls
those reluctant predestinated persons and since the Holy Spirit’s impulse is too strong to
be repulsed; thus they will be drawn before God. Then, God regenerates before they will
be justified. And lastly, once they will be justified, God adopts them as His son and
daughters.
Furthermore, Chapter 3 discusses Wesley’s understanding of via salutis in which
in his notion it is governed by God’s love. Wesley’s notion imparts a therapeutic
59
soteriology. His via salutis imparts a notion that salvation is a dynamic momentous
process. His proponents define it as a fluid way of salvation since it needs cooperation
between God and man. Although Wesley is careful enough to set barriers that made this
soteriology not in lined with pelegianism, it is, however, a synergistic approach but more
inclined to semi-Augustinian principles.
Wesley’s via salutis, as a paradigm posits that God is love and that it is the basis
that He gives his grace so freely. Wesley the same with Calvin understood the total
depravity of man both in physical and spiritual; thus, it is called en toto. However, in
Wesley’s side, the will of man is not totally corrupted; hence, man could still feel God’s
preventing grace because man still retain its free will. Likewise, in order for the person to
be elected, he only needs to believe. Aside from that, the efficacies of atonement is given
to the person unlimitedly because sins are not separated from a person immediately. It is
the same moment that the person believes he or she is justified at the same time initially
sanctified since sanctification is a lifelong yet both instantaneous gradual process. The
caveat is that the person who is saved is still bound to commit mistakes, even rejects the
saving relationship with God and walks in sinful state again.
To sum up the process of via salutis, God bestows his preventing grace. Once the
person responds to this momentous event where he repented and believe, at that moment
he is justified and at the same time initially is sanctified cooperating with the Holy Spirit
to mature in faith. This means that the person is already saved.
Chapter 4 analyzes the data gathered between Calvin’s ordo salutis and Wesley’s
via salutis. At some point, these nuances of soteriology have similarities and
dissimilarities. Both of them are similar in affirming the following: man is totally sinful
60
and is bending to sinning; God predestinated people to be saved; salvation is for all
humanity, but, not all will be saved; grace is irresistible; justification is by grace.
However, both of them disaffirm that atonement is universal. Additionally, they differ in
five points. Calvin understood the ordo salutis as total depravity, unconditional election,
limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints while Wesley
understood the via salutis as all are sinful, conditional election, unlimited atonement,
resistible grace and assurance of salvation. The chapter as well highlights the Adventist’s
hindsight about it and their disagreements of the said views, which are the following:
totally depraved, redemptive calling, atoning priesthood, covenant of grace, and
experience of salvation. Together with the hindsight, the paper has a theological
implication.
In theological implication, the study implicates a therapeutic predestination since
it is governed by love, compassionate grace since that are both forensic and dynamic kind
of grace, prescriptive atonement in a sense that God bestows it to those who repented,
and lastly wilful freedom since God give a will that could reject His calling.
Conclusion
The researcher affirms that some of the presuppositions shown in their theology
are correct. However, in soteriological process Calvin understood it in a logical order
which his theological thought were so complex to support his systematize argument.
Constructively, Wesley understands it in a practical sense. Although there is a serious
problem, it is, however, understandable in light of studying the church history. Thus,
there should no form of any bias and condemnation against their hyper paradigm and
interpretations.
61
Moreover, Calvin posits a soteriology in an orderly way where his proponents
called it ordo salutis. Ordo salutis could also be theologically understood that God does
not allow people to be converted to the truth instead He calls whom He elects. This in
turn made God determines whom He must save. The ordo starts with predestination
through regeneration before justification. It is safe to say that Calvin’s ordo posits the
idea that regeneration comes first before justification although it is not temporal.
On the other, Wesley posits a notion in his soteriology that God is love that is the
main overarching theme when studying via salutis. Via salutis is a dynamic process of
salvation and it emphatically augmented that God’s love is always present even the
person does not believe. Wesley’s via salutis admits that when the person believe or have
faith that person is saved regardless of how partial the repentance is. Thus the moment
the person believes that person is justified at the same time sanctified.
Based on a comparative analysis, Wesley’s via salutis is more theologically
accurate and correct than that of Calvin’s ordo salutis. But Calvin’s paradigm is more
comprehensive that the motif of salvation from beginning to end is still the same. In
Calvin’s ordo, one will not be saved unless he or she is called and be elected. It is
significant to remember that it is not about repentance and faith that the person will be
saved. It is about God’s favour in bestowing His grace and decree through predestination
to determine His elect. This is a huge contrast to Wesley’s via that once a person
believes, he or she will be momentously justified and sanctified and at the same time will
be adopted as His children still having a will to be of leaning on the saving state or not
and living a sanctified life in the process.
62
Further, it is evident that the theological framework of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church has been in line with John Wesley, than that of John Calvin. The Adventist way
of salvation has overlying paradigms with Wesley’s via salutis, than the ordo salutis of
John Calvin. The Adventist soteriological paradigm was influenced by Jacobus Arminius
and John Wesley; and was filtered through Ellen G. White.
Therefore, amidst this contrasting evidence that has been presented in this work, it
is safe to say that God is both sovereign and love. His love re-echoed His sentiments on
the fallen human race. His love buried the bottomless effect of sin. And His grace is by
no man’s fathomable to think.
63
APPENDIX 1: CANONS OF DORT
The Effect of the fall on Human Nature
Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true
and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with
righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy.
However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by his own free will, he
deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself
blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity,
defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.1
The Spread of Corruption
Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say,
being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just
judgment, from Adam to all his descendants—except for Christ alone—not by way of
imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation
of his perverted nature.2
God’s Eternal Decree
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not,
stems from his eternal decision. For “all his works are known to God from eternity.” In
accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his
chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their
wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially
is disclosed to us his act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing
between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation
revealed in God’s word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their
own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.3 (Emphasis
added).
1Canons of Dort, 3/4.1.
2Canons of Dort, 3/4.2.
3Canons of Dort, 1.6.
64
The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father
that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work
itselfout in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only
and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.4 (emphasis added)
Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any
saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the
regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their
distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.5
God’s Preservation of the Converted
Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of
the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this
grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in
the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end.6
4Canons of Dort, 2.8.
5Canons of Dort, 3/4.2.
6Canons of Dort, 5.3.
65
APPENDIX 2: TIMELINE OF JOHN CALVIN1
1509 – John Calvin was born on July 10, 1509 in Noyon, France. His mother Jeanne died
when Calvin was around 5 or 6 years old and his father Gerard remarried after the
death.
1528 – Calvin went to Orleans and then Bourges to study law.
1531 – Calvin’s father died.
1532 – In April of 1532, Calvin published his first book, a scholarly commentary on a
treatise by the Roman Stoic Seneca titled De Clementia (On Clemency).
1533 – Calvin’s “sudden conversion.”
1533 – On November 1, Nicholas Cop gaves his inaugural address, which favored reform
at the University of Paris (many think Calvin wrote it); those known to be
connected with the ideas of reform were forced to flee Paris.
1534 – In May, Calvin traveled to his hometown, Noyon, and resigned his benefice; in
October, the Affair of the Placards took place; there was a swift reaction against
Protestants in France. He also wrote Psychopannychia a treatise against soul
sleep.
1535 – Calvin left France and sought refuge in the Swiss city of Basel.
1536 – In March Calvin published Institutes of the Christian Religion, Embracing Almost
the Whole Sum of Piety, and Whatever Is Necessary to Know of the Doctrine of
Salvation: A Work Most Worthy to Be Read by All Persons Zealous for Piety or
later on known as in its abbreviated title Institutes of the Christian Religion. He
was 26 years old when he published the book. The crisis in France during his time
which was persecution motivated him to finish the book.
1538 – Banished from Geneva, Calvin goes to Strasbourg as pastor to the French-
speaking congregation.
1539 – Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans and in August an expanded,
reorganized edition of Institutes was published. Cardinal Sadeleto wrote letter to
Geneva. Calvin responded on behalf of Geneva. He also published The Form of
Ecclesiastical Prayers and Hymns and Little Treatise on the Holy Supper.
1540 – In August, Calvin married the widow of an Anabaptist, Idelette de Bure.
1541 – Calvin was welcomed back to Geneva. He resumed his position as a Bible teacher
on September 13, 1541; he then began teaching from the very verse from which
he had left off in 1538.
1542 – He drafted a constitution for the church, the Ecclesiastical Ordinances which
resulted into a creation of a consistory. Calvin writes a treatise on free will against
the Roman Catholic theologian Albert Pighius.
1Christian History Institute, “John Calvin: Christian History Timeline,” CHM, 1986; Thomas J.
Davis, John Calvin, SLT (Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea, 2005), 102–5; William S. Johnson, John Calvin,
Reformer for the 21st Century (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 1–10.
1932-2015
66
1549 – Consensus Tigurinus was signed with Zurich. Calvin’s wife died due to illness.
1552 – Jerome Bolsec banished from Geneva.
1553 – Through the help of Calvin, Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy.
1559 – Calvin was made a citizen of Geneva. The final edition of Institutes was
published. Genevan academy was established.
1564 – Calvin died on May 27 in Geneva and buried in an unmarked grave.
67
APPENDIX 3: TIMELINE OF JOHN WESLEY1
1703 – John Wesley was born on June 28, 1703 in Epworth, Lincolnshire. He was 15th of
the18th children but second surviving child of Samuel and Susana Wesley.2
1709 – On February 9, he was saved from a burning rectory and branded as “Plucked as a
brand out of the fire.”3
1713 – January 28, entered to Charterhouse school.
1720 – On June, John Wesley studied in Oxford at Christ Church.
1724 – He finished his B.A degree.
1725 – Wesley was ordained as deacon on September 26.
1726 – March 17, 1726 elected fellow at Lincoln College, Oxford.
1727 – February 14, 1727 graduated as Masters of Arts in Theology.
1727 – Wesley began to be homo unius libri.
1727 – Took up assistant pastorale of Wroote, Lines.
1728 – John became and ordained as presbyter on September 22, 1728.4
1729 – June 17, 1729 he returned to Oxford and took over leadership of Holy Club.
1732 – December, Methodist was the official tag of Wesleyan movement at Oxford
1733 – January 1, 1733 preached “The Circumcision of the Heart.”
1733 – He also published A Collection of Forms of Prayer.
1735 – John and Charles left for Georgia.
1735 – Wesley Started doing the casting of lots.
1736 – John Arrived in Georgia on February 6, 1736.
1737 – John departed from America.
1738 – John Wesley's Conversion on May 24 in which he described as a warmth in his
heart.
1738 – Preached his first sermon “Salvation by Faith.”
1738 – Preached “On God’s Vineyard.”
1738 – During May the Fetter Lane Society was created in which Wesley called it as “the
third rise of Methodism.”
1739 – Wesley went to Bristol. “Our Room” was built in Bristol however, in June,
Wesley called it “new room.”
1739 – Wesley’s first open-air (field preaching) preaching modeled after the style of
George Whitefield.
1739 – Wesley preached his sermon on “Free Grace” in April 1739 at Bristol.
1Christian History Institute, “The Wesleys: Christian History Timeline,” CHM, 2001; See Rost,
“John Wesley,” Timeline: John Wesley 1703-1791.
2Marianne Kirlew, The Story of John Wesley: Told to Boys and Girls (London: Culley, 1895), 4.
3Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 33.
4Letters 25:230.
68
1739 – First Attack on Methodism theologically.
1740 – The break off from Moravians and Whitefield.
1741 – “The Character of the Methodist” Wesley’s doctrine of Christian Perfection.
1742 – Further published another two key treatises, Brief History of the Principles of
Methodism and The Principles of a Methodist.
1743 – Wesley published An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, a “plain
account” of the Methodists’ principles and actions.
1746 – The first publication of Sermons on Several Occasions I and he also founded a
dispensary for the poor.
1748 – He published Sermons on Several Occasions II.
1750 – He published Sermons on Several Occasions III.
1751 – Wesley married Mrs. Vazeille. He Preached in Scotland for first time (first of 22
trips).
1755 – First publication of Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament.
1760 – He published Sermons on Several Occasions IV.
1768 – Opening of Methodist Chapel in New York Founding of Lady Huntington’s
College of Trevecca.
1765 – Published “A short history of Methodism.”
1775 – John Wesley publishes A Calm Address to Our American Colonies, urging
obedience to Britain.
1778 – Published the Arminian Magazine, A monthly magazine aimed directly to the two
Calvinist magazines, The Spiritual Magazine and The Gospel Magazine.
1783 – John Wesley visited Holland.
1784 –John Wesley ordained Thomas Coke and others for work in America which
eventually and unintentionally led to break with the Anglican Church: “ordination
is separation”
1790 – The last edition of Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament.
1791 – Last sermon (Isa. 55:6) preached.
1791 – He uttered his last words “The best of all is, God is with us!” and died on March
2, 1791.
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Righteousness” [Rom 3:20, 21]. SDABC. Rev. ed. Edited by Francis D. Nichol.
Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1976-1980. 6:1071.
Anderson, R. A. “The Atonement in Adventist Theology.” MM, February 1959.
Archer, Kenneth J. “Nourishment for Our Journey: The Pentecostal Via Salutis and
Sacramental Ordinances.” JPT 13.1 (2004): 79–97.
Baker, Frank. “Practical Divinity-John Wesley's Doctrinal Agenda for Methodism.”
WesTJ 22.1 (1987): 7-15.
Ballor, Jordan J., David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds. Church and School in Early
Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation
of a Theological Tradition. Vol. 170 of SHCTr. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Barabbas, Steven. So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick
Convention. Edinburgh: Scott, 1952.
Barnett, T. “Can We Escape the Law of Non-Contradiction?” SR 31 October 2015.
Barth, Karl. The Theology of the Reformed Confessions. Translated by Darrell L. Guder
and Judith J. Guder. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Beedle, Edward E. “Preaching Wesley’s Ordo Salutis: A Study in Wesleyan Theology
Today.” DMin diss, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2017.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996.
Berkouwer, Gerrit C. Faith and Justification. Translated by Lewis B. Smedes. SD 4.1.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.
Billings, J. Todd. “John Milbank’s Theology of the “Gift” and Calvin’s Theology of
Grace: A Critical Comparison.” MT 21:1 (2005) 87-105.
Blacketer, Raymond A. “The Man in the Black Hat: Theodore Beza and The
Reorientation of Early Reformed Historiography.” Pages 229-30 in Church and
School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on
the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S.
Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema. Vol. 170 of SHCTr. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
70
Blankenship, Paul F. “The Significance of John Wesley's Abridgment of the Thirty-Nine
Articles as Seen from His Deletions,” MH 2.3 (1964): 35-47.
Blazen, Ivan T. “Salvation.” Pages 274-282 in Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist
Theology. Edited by Raoul Dederen. Commentary Reference Series 12.
Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002.
Bruinsma, Reinder. The Body of Christ: A Biblical Understanding of the Church. LAT 3.
Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2009.
Burgess, Stanley M. ed. NDPM. Rev. and expanded. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. 3rd ed. Rev. and expanded. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Cairus, Aecio. “Substitionary Atonement.” BRI 12 (2015): 1-24.
Calvin, Jean, and Jacopo Sadoleto. A Reformation Debate: Sadoleto’s Letter to the
Genevans and Calvin’s Reply. Edited by John C. Olin. New York: Fordham
University Press, 2000.
Calvin, John. “A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God by John Calvin.”
Monergism, n.d. https://www.monergism.com/treatise-eternal-predestination-god-
john-calvin.
———. Treatises on the Eternal Predestination of God, the Secret Providence of God.
Translated by Henry Cole. Edinburgh: CrossReach, 2018.
———. A Selection of the Most Celebrated Sermons of John Calvin. New York: Forbes,
1830.
———. CalCom. Edited and Translated by Joseph Haroutunian. LCC. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1958.
———. CCE. Edited and translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007.
———. CEPAH. Edited and translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007.
———. CEPAR. Translated and edited by John Owen. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007.
———. CETTP. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007.
———. Commentary John 1-11. Edited and translated by William Pringle. Vol. 1 of
CGAJ. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2007.
71
———. Institute. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford L. Battles. 3 Vols.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.
———. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by John Allen. Memorial ed. 1
vol. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board, 1909.
———. OpQSupO, Edited by Edouard Cunitz, Johann-Wilhelm Baum and Eduard
Wilhelm Eugen Reuss. 59 Vols. Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1863-1900
Campbell, Ted A. Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon,
2011.
Caughey, James, Ralph W. Allen, and Daniel Wise. Methodism in Earnest: Being the
History of a Great Revival in Great Britain; in Which Twenty Thousand Souls
Were Justified, and Ten Thousand Sanctified, in About Six Years, Through The
Instrumentality of Rev. James Caughey; Including an Account of the Mental and
Spiritual Exercises Which Made Him so Eminent a Revivalis. Boston, MA: Pierce,
1850.
Chilcote, Paul W. Recapturing the Wesley’s Vision: An Introduction to the Faith of John
and Charles Wesley. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1954.
Christian History Institute. “John Calvin: Christian History Timeline.” CHM, 1986.
———. “John Wesley: Leader of the Methodist Movement.” CHM, 1983.
———. “The Wesley’s: Christian History Timeline.” CHM, 2001.
Cloud, David. The Calvinism Debate, IFC. Port Horon, MI: Way of Life, 2013.
Coalter, Milton J. and Virgil Cruz, eds. How Shall We Witness?: Faithful Evangelism in a
Reformed Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.
Collins, George N. “Order of Salvation.” Page 802 in EDT. Edited by Walter A. Elwell.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Collins, Kenneth J. and Jason E. Vickers, eds. The Sermons of John Wesley: A Collection
for the Christian Journey. Nashville: Abingdon, 2013.
Collins, Kenneth J. The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2007.
———. “A Hermeneutical Model for the Wesleyan Ordo Salutis.” WesTJ 19.2 (1984):
23-37.
Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: A Biography. Edinburgh: Black, 2003.
Davie, Martin, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell and T. A. Noble, eds.
NDT. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.
72
Davis, John J. “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine.” JETS 34.2
(1991): 213-228.
Davis, Thomas J. John Calvin. SLT. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea, 2005.
Dederen, Raoul, ed. HSDAT. CRS 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
———. “Christ: His Person and Work.” Page 198 in HSDAT. Edited by Raoul Dederen.
CRS 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
Demarest, Bruce A. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton:
Crossway, 1997.
Densing, Algae S. “True Friends.” Page 213 in Never Forget. Edited by Missi Ortega,
Pinky Leonor Bayeta, Winston Mojica, Nelson Madriaga, and Madonna Lourdes
Felicitas. Caloocan City, Philippines: Philippine, 2019.
DeVries, Dawn. “What is Conversion?” Page 32 in How Shall We Witness?: Faithful
Evangelism in a Reformed Tradition. Edited by Milton J. Coalter and Virgil Cruz.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.
Domocmat, Lowell J. Chosen & Free: Predestination of Arminius and Wesley. Santa
Cruz, Ilocos Sur: Maxwell Voice, 2013.
Drummond, Lewis A. The Canvas Cathedral. Nashville: Nelson, 2001.
Elwell, Walter A. EDT. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001.
Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. and expanded. Chicago, IL:
Moody, 2008.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Nook.
Erlandson, Charles, and Stephen Rost, eds. A Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching:
Featuring the Best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H.
Spurgeon and Others. Nashville: Nelson, 1997.
Evans, William B. Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed
Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008.
Fackre, Gabriel. Foreword to Universal Salvation? The Current Debate. Edited by Robin
A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Felicitas, Felixian T. Arminianism, Calvinism, and Adventism: Surviving the Labyrinth.
Live. 3rd Theological Forum: Arminianism and Adventism: Grace, Free Will, and
Judgment. Valencia City: Mountain View College, 2021.
https://fb.watch/5JZzIrK51D/.
73
Ferguson, Sinclair B. “Ordo Salutis.” Pages 634-35 in NDT. Edited by Martin Davie,
Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell and T. A. Noble. 2nd ed.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.
Fernando L. Canale. “Doctrine of God.” Pages 137, 177-78 in HSDAT. Edited by Raoul
Dederen. CRS 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
Fesko, J. V. “Romans 8.29-30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis.” JRT 8.1 (2014): 35-
60.
Finney, Charles G. Finney’s Systematic Theology. Edited by J. H Fairchild. Minneapolis,
MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1976.
———. Principles of Sanctification. Edited by L. G. Parkhurst. Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany, 1986.
———. Systematic Theology: Sin, Salvation. Vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 2004.
———. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Fortin, Dennis. “Sanctification and Perfection: The Work of a Lifetime.” PD, 2020.
Fowler, John M. “Sin.” Page 262 in HSDAT. Edited by Raoul Dederen. CRS 12.
Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
Frame, John M. “Salvation and Theological Pedagogy.” RRJ 14.1 (2005): 57-70.
Franklin, Patrick S. “John Wesley in Conversation with the Emerging Church.” AsJ 63.1
(2008): 75-93.
Freedman, David Noel, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. EDB. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2019.
Gaffin, Richard Jr. B. “Inaugural Lectures Biblical Theology and The Westminster
Standards.” WTJ 65.2 (2004): 165-79.
Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany,
2011.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2014.
Nook.
Giffin, Ryan K. “The Good Work of Justifcation, Sanctifcation, and Glorifcation: John
Wesley’s Soteriological Explanation of Philippians 1:6.” AsJ 73.1 (2018): 121-
137.
Gregory, Brad S. The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized
Society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2012.
74
Grider, J. Kenneth. Entire Sanctification. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1980.
Grotius, Hugo, and Edwin Rabbie. Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae Ac Westfrisiae
Pietas, 1613. SHCT 66. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Gulley, Norman. Creation, Christ, Salvation. Vol. 3 of ST. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2014.
Gundry, Stanley N. ed. Five Views on Sanctification. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987.
Hanna, Martin F., Darius W. Jankiewicz, and John W. Reeve, eds. Salvation: Contours of
Adventist Soteriology. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018.
Heitzenrater, Richard P. Wesley and the People Called Methodists. 2nd ed. Nashville:
Abingdon, 2013.
Helm, Paul. “Calvin, Indefinite Language, and Definite Atonement.” Pages 97-120 in
From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical,
Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective. Edited by D. Gibson and J.
Gibson. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
Hendriksen, W. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to
Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1975.
Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2013.
Holbrook, Frank B. The Atoning Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Hagerstown, MD: Review &
Herald, 1996.
Holgerson, Timothy W. “The Wesleyan Enlightenment: Closing the Gap between Heart
Religion and Reason in Eighteenth Century England.” PhD diss., Kansas State
University, 2017.
Hopper, Isaac. “‘Christ Alone for Salvation:’ The Role of Christ and His Work in John
Wesley’s Theology.” PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2017.
Horton, Michael S. For Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Horton, Michael S., and J. Matthew Pinson, eds. Four Views on Eternal Security.
Counterpoints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Husbands, Mark and Daniel J. Treier. Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current
Debates. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Ivan T. Blazen. “Salvation.” Page 274 in HSDAT. Edited by Raoul Dederen. CRS 12.
Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
75
Johnson, Marcus. “New or Nuanced Perspective on Calvin? A Reply to Thomas
Wenger.” JETS 51.3 (2008): 543-58.
Johnson, William S. John Calvin, Reformer for the 21st Century. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2009.
Jones, Scott J. United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center. Nashville: Abingdon,
2002.
Joyner, F. Belton. United Methodist Questions; United Methodist Answers: Exploring
Christian Faith. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Kainer, Gordon. The Battle for You: The Life-and-Death Struggle for Control of Your
Soul. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014.
Kardong, Terrence. Benedict’s Rule: a Translation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1999.
Kidd, Thomas S. George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2014.
Kierkegaard, Richardson. “Christ and Abraham.” Page 239 in The Great Debate Today.
Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1970.
Kirlew, Marianne. The Story of John Wesley: Told to Boys and Girls. London: Culley,
1895.
Knight, George R. “The Grace That Comes Before.” Page 288 in Salvation: Contours of
Adventist Soteriology. Edited by Martin F. Hanna, Darius W. Jankiewicz, and
John W. Reeve. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018.
———. Sin and Salvation: God’s Work for and in Us. Rev. ed. LAT 2. Hagerstown,
MD: Review & Herald, 2009.
———. The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism. Hagerstown, MD:
Review & Herald, 2008.
———. The Cross of Christ: God's Work for Us. Rev. ed. LAT 1. Hagerstown, MD:
Review & Herald, 2008.
Knight, Henry III H. “Wesley on Faith and Good Works.” No pages. Cited April 15,
2021. Online: https://www.catalystresources.org/wesley-on-faith-and-good-
works/.
———. “Love and Freedom ‘by Grace Alone’ in Wesley’s Soteriology: A Proposal for
Evangelicals.” JSPS 24.1 (2002): 57–67.
Kurian, George Thomas, ed. NDC. Nashville: Nelson, 2008.
76
Langford, Andy, and Sally Langford. Living as United Methodist Christians: Our Story;
Our Belief; Our Lives. Nashville: Abingdon, 2011.
Leith, John H. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation of the Word and Its Significance
for Today in the Light of Recent Research.” RevExp 86.1 (2004): 29-44.
Lenski, R. C. H. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Matthew’s
Gospel. Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1943.
Light, Gary W. “Salvation.” EDB. Edited by Freedman, David Noel. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2019.
Lumkins, P. “John Calvin on Limited Atonement.” SBC Tomorrow. 15 April
2011. https://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/04/john-calvin-on-
limited-atonement-by-peter-lumpkins.html.
Lutzer, Erwin W. Rescuing the Gospel: The Story and Significance of the Reformation.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation. London: Penguin, 2005.
Maddox, Randy L. “Celebrating the Whole Wesley: A Legacy for Contemporary
Wesleyans.” MH 43.2 (2005): 74-89.
———. “Reading Wesley as a Theologian.” WesTJ 30.1 (1995): 7-54.
———. “Theology of John and Charles Wesley.” T&T Clark Companion to Methodism.
Edited by Charles Jr. Yrigoyen. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
———. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Nashville, TN:
Kingswood, 1994.
McGowan, A.T.B. “Justification and the Ordo Salutis.” Foundations 51 (2004): 6-18.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2017.
———. Reformation Thought: An Introduction. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,
2012.
McKim, Donald K. WDTT. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014.
McQuilkin, J. Robertson. “The Keswick Perspective.” Pages 155, 160-67 in Five Views
on Sanctification. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987.
Ministerial Association of the General Conference. Seventh-day Adventist Believe: An
Exposition of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 2nd
ed. Boise, ID: Pacific, 2005.
77
Moskala, Jiří, and John Peckham, eds. God’s Character and the Last Generation. Nampa,
Idaho: Pacific Press, 2018.
Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the
Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.
Muller, Richard A. DLGTT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1985.
Newman, Jay. Foundations of Religious Tolerance. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press, 1982.
Nichol, Francis D. ed. SDABC. Rev. ed. CRS 6. Washington, DC: Review & Herald,
1976-1980.
Oden, Thomas C. Christ and Salvation. Vol. 2 of JWT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Olson, Roger E. “Eighteenth-Century Irish Deist Toland and English Evangelist Wesley
Debate Faith and Reason, God and Miracles.” Pages 289-308 a chapter in God in
Despute: “Conversations” Among Great Christian Thinkers. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2009. Scribd.
Olson, Roger E. “Grace and Free Will: A Parable.” Patheos, 9 August 2010.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/grace-and-free-will-a-
parable/.
———. Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed
Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
———. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.
Ortega, Missi V., Pinky Leonor B. Bayeta, Winston C. Mojica, Nelson M. Madriaga and
Madonna Lourdes M. Felicitas, eds. Never Forget. Caloocan, Philippines:
Philippine, 2019.
Oudtshoorn, Andre van. “Solus, Sola: Constructing a Christocentric Faith Model of the
‘Ordo Salutis.’” VEcc 35.1 (2014): 1-9.
Packer, J. I. “Order of Salvation.” Page 925 in EDB. Edited by Freedman, David Noel.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Pannenberg, Wolfbart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Parry, Robin A., and Christopher H. Partridge, eds. Universal Salvation? The Current
Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Pask, A. “The Influence of Arminius upon the Theology of John Wesley.” PhD diss.,
University of Edinburgh, 1939.
78
Pauck, Wilhelm. “Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.” CH 15.1 (1946): 17-27.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, Valerie R. Hotchkiss, and Jaroslav Pelikan, eds. “The Remonstrance,
1610.” Creeds & Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Vol. 2.4 of
CCRE. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Pentecostal Discipline of the Pentecostal Holiness Church. Franklin Springs, GA: Board
of Publication.
Peter M. van Bemmelen. “Revelation and Inspiration.” Page 61 in HSDAT. Edited by
Dederen, Raoul. CRS 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
Peterson, Robert A. and Michael D. Williams. Why I am Not Arminian. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, 2 vol. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1951.
Reid, W. Standford. “Calvin and the Founding of the Academy of Geneva,” WTJ 18.1
(2003): 1-32.
Rice, Richard. “Sanctification and Perfection: Another Look.” MM, June 1984.
Rieske, K R. "Calvinism: False doctrines from the ‘Pope’ of Geneva." Bible Life
Ministries. https://biblelife.org/calvinism.htm.
Stephen Rost, ed. “John Wesley.” In A Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching:
Featuring the Best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H.
Spurgeon and Others. Edited by Charles Erlandson and Stephen Rost (Nashville:
Nelson, 1997. Logos.
Rothwell, Mel-Thomas, Pilgrim Holiness Church General Board, and Helen F. Rothwell.
A Catechism on the Christian Religion. Salem, OH: Pilgrim, 1944.
Royster, Mark. “John Wesley’s Doctrine of Prevenient Grace in Missiological
Perspective.” DMiss diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 1989.
Sawyer, M. James. Survivor’s Guide to Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016.
Scroggs, Robin. “John Wesley as Biblical Scholar.” JBR 28.4 (1960): 415-22.
Spittler, R. P. “Glossolalia.” Page 3672 in NDPCM. Rev. and expanded. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003.
Sproul, R. C. What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1997.
Stewart, Al. Wesleyan-Arminian Theology : Revisited. RS 5. Forest, VA: PoBoy, 2020.
79
Stewart, Kenneth J. “The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect.” SBET 26.2
(2008): 187-203.
Thorsen, Don. “TULIP VS. ACURA: Reframing Differences Between Calvin And
Wesley.” WesTJ 50.2 (2015): 96-112.
———. An Exploration of Christian Theology. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
———. Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice. Nashville: Abingdon,
2013.
Trinklein, John. “Holiness Unto Whom? John Wesley’s Doctrine of Entire Sanctification
in Light of The Two Kinds of Righteousness.” PhD diss., Concordia Seminary,
2016.
Trumbull, Charles G. Victory in Christ. Philadelphia, PA: The Sunday School Times,
1959.
Tyson, John R. Assist Me to Proclaim: The Life and Hymns of Charles Wesley. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Vail, William H. “The Five Points of Calvinism Historically Considered.” TO, 21 June
1913.
Venema, Cornelis P. “The Duplex Gratia Dei and the Organization of Calvin’s Institutes:
Ordo Docendi or Ordo Salutis?” CSEMP (2013): 123–34.
———. “The Duplex Gratia Dei and the Organization of Calvin’s Institutes: Ordo
Docendi or Ordo Salutis?.” Pages 123–34 in Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a
Theological Tradition. Edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason
Zuidema. Vol. 170 of SHCTr. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
van Bemmelen, Peter M. “Revelation and Inspiration.” Page 61 in HSDAT. Edited by
Raoul Dederen. CRS 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000.
Vorster, Nicolaas. “Calvin on Human Reason,” DIS 48.1(2014): 1-9.
Warfield, Benjamin B. “On the Literary History of Calvin’s Institutes.” Introduction to
Institutes of the Christian Religion. By John Calvin. Translated by John Allen
Mem. ed. 1 vol. Philadelphia, PA: Presbytarian Board, 1909.
Weber, Otto. Foundations of Dogmatics. Translated by Darrell L. Guder. 2 vols. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Wesley, John. “To John Newton [Londonderry: May 14, 1765].” Page 210 in John
Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology. Edited by Albert C. Outler and Richard P.
Heitzenrater. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991.
80
Wesley, John. A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. London: Strahan, 1745.
———. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology. Edited by Albert C. Outler and Richard
P. Heitzenrater. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991.
———. Sermons on Several Occasions. Grand Rapids: CCEL, 2010.
———. The Complete Works of John Wesley. 13 Vols. Albany: AGES Digital Library,
1996-97.
———. The Question, What Is an Arminian? Answered. By a Lover of Free Grace.
London: Whitfield, 1798.
———. The Scripture Way of Salvation: A Sermon on Ephesians ii. 8. London:
Paramore, 1791.
———. Works. Edited by Thomas Jackson. 13 Vols. Albany: AGES Digital Library,
1996-97.
Whidden, Woodrow II W. “Adventist Theology: The Wesleyan Connection.” No pages.
Cited April 15, 2021. Online: https://web.archive.org/web/20190630044749/
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/es/node/203.
———. Ellen White on Salvation. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1995. Nook.
———. Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald,
1997. Nook.
———. The Judgment and Assurance. LAT 4. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald,
2012.
———. Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His
Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships. Hagerstown, MD: Review &
Herald, 2002.
White, Ellen G. Christ Object Lessons. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1941.
———. Gospel Workers. Washington, D.C: Review & Herald, 1915.
———. Manuscript Release. Vol. 14. Silver Spring, MD: White Estate, 1981.
———. Selected Messages. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958.
———. Steps to Christ. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1956.
———. Testimonies for the Church. Vol. 6. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1948.
———. The Acts of the Apostles. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1911.
81
White, Ellen G. The Desire of Ages. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1940.
———. The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. Mountain View, CA: Pacific,
1950.
Wilkens, Steve, and Don Thorsen. Read Everything You Know about Evangelicals is
Wrong: Well, Almost Everything. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2010.
Wright, N. T. “New Perspectives on Paul.” Page 255 in Justification in Perspective:
Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by Bruce L.
McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Yoo, Joseph Chang Hyung. “A Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification for the Korean
Context.” PhD Diss., University of Pretoria, 2007.
