by Peter Phillips
The Historical Context
Like all theology, Wesleyan theology did not come into existence without a historical context, and therefore it cannot be understood apart from a proper discussion of the historical landscape of which Wesley was part. First, it is helpful to understand that in 17th and 18th century Europe, doctrine had become so refined “in certain” Lutheran and Reformed circles, that it had grown cold and stale, a pale comparison to the reformation of the 16th century. Church historian Justo L. Gonzalez describes the situation this way:
Protestant orthodoxy did a great service to the development of Protestant theology, for it served to spell out some of the implications of the great insights of the sixteenth century. At first, it was deeply religious, for it was an attempt to set down with as much detail and clarity as possible what were matters of personal religious significance for those involved in the movement. However, as succeeding generations inherited the theological work of their ancestors, that work became increasingly stale and objectified, as if the significance of theology were to be found primarily in a series of truths that could be formally stated in propositions to be transmitted from one generation to another.
Although Gonzalez has somewhat overstated the pervasiveness of the problem with Protestant scholasticism, he serves to remind us of some of the dangers that can stem from scholasticism of any kind. In short, certain theologians of Wesley’s day had lost sight of the practical and experiential importance of Christian doctrine. Therefore, in response to this development springs the birth of Pietism, which sought to underscore the practical and experiential importance of doctrine and personal relationship with Christ. Spener, Wesley, the Moravians, the Methodists, and the Puritans were all apart of the Pietism movement, and each sought the revitalization of the Christian life and practice, but some were more faithful to the Reformation and Scripture than others. However, Wesley was a man of reform, in a day that needed reformation, and he gave a clarion call that the simplicity of the gospel must be preached.
The second issue that was a part of the historical landscape of Wesley’s day was antinomianism, which was the doctrine that the law was made void by faith. Wesley commented on the main tenets of antinomian thinking at the First Annual conference of Methodists, on June 26, 1744. He lists six pillars of their teaching:
1. That Christ abolished the moral law:
2. That Christians, therefore are not obliged to observe it;
3. That one branch of Christian liberty is liberty from obeying the commandments of God;
4. That it is bondage to do a thing because it is commanded or forbear it because it is forbidden;
5. That a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God or to do good works;
6. That a preacher ought not to exhort to good works—neither to unbelievers because it is hurtful, nor to believers because it is needless.
Wesley fought vigorously against antinomian doctrines because he believed they were heretical and detrimental to the living witness of the church. What is relevant for the purposes of this paper is that antinomian teachings undercut the reality that Christians ought to live like Christ and follow His teachings. Thus, Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification was reactionary in nature. He sought to give a clear account of what the Bible teaches on the subject, but sadly, he went to extremes most times due to his antinomian opponents. Antinomianism needed to be answered, and Wesley was there with a fresh take on sanctification and the Christian life. Although he would affirm that his view goes back to the Apostles, it was not until some time around the 4th century that similar doctrines were even heard of.
