Did Charles Wesley Reject "Doctrines of Grace"?

A Refutation of The Dissenter's Jeff Maples' Dismissal of Charles Wesley

Why I Struggle with Jeff Maples

Last week, I received in my email an article from the online periodical known as The Dissenter, written by Jeff Maples, in which he explores the doctrinal correctness of Charles Wesley's Christmas hymn, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!" Having myself written a blogpost on the Christmas carols recently and having noted the theological integrity of these great hymns, I began reading this article today, despite my usual habit of deleting them. It is not that I disagree with the central argument of many of Maples' articles; it is that they are almost always so overwhelmingly negative that I feel as if I am violating the Apostle Paul's command to "think on these things." What things? Whatsoever is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy. Those things, per Philippians 4:8. Almost nothing Maples writes about fits into these "things," even though he is a staunch conservative deeply concerned with the decay of Christianity today. He reminds me of one whose eyes are fixed on the wind and the waves instead of upon the Lord of the Storm. He also reminds me of the amateur sleuth who studies counterfeits instead of authentic bills or of the depressed weatherman who insists it is partly cloudy when the sun is actually shining.

I have written to Jeff before--when he pounced upon the death of former President Jimmy Carter less than 48 hours after his passing with an article entitled, "Lord, Lord, did I not . . . ?" Clearly, this Scripture indicts those whom the Lord never knew and who are cast out as workers of iniquity. Maples writes: "Despite all these 'works,' Carter, a man whose name has been celebrated as synonymous with humanitarianism, progressive virtue, and a self-professed 'deeply personal' Christian faith, has now come face to face with the judgment of God." I didn't know how he could know that. At 100 years old, Carter could certainly have had time to wrestle with his Maker before he died and could have rued prior works that will be burned in the Judgment. Yes, we can inspect fruit and judge works of the flesh, but we haven't been given the task to assign people to hell. Only the Lord knows what happened in Carter's heart and mind right before he died. I told Maples that this article seemed a bit like a vulture swooping down on its prey with no regard for those grieving Carter's death. His terse reply was this: "How long does he have to be dead before he can be criticized?"

Why Jeff Maples Targets Charles Wesley

This time the target seems to be Charles Wesley, despite Maples' respect for his Christmas carol, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing." Before I explain, I need to add that The Dissenter carries a subtitle "by Reformation Charlotte." Without a doubt, Maples is a Calvinist. But he isn't any sort of Calvinist I know because neither George Whitefield nor Charles Spurgeon would have written what he wrote in the beginning of his article. He writes: Written in 1739 by Charles Wesley, this hymn stands as one of the clearest and most densely packed proclamations of the incarnation ever set to music. Wesley’s broader theological commitments are well known, and his rejection of the doctrines of grace cannot be ignored. But that reality does not diminish the fact that here—whether by discipline, immersion in Scripture, or sheer poetic precision—he gave the Church a hymn that faithfully proclaims the gospel without qualification or dilution.

Why This Is Poor Journalism

A statement like this about Wesley's rejection of the doctrines of grace represents poor journalism for many reasons. First of all, it simply isn't true on any level. Maples has to reject hundreds of years of church history if he maintains that Wesley rejected the doctrines of grace. Second, he has to reach his own private interpretation of Wesley's personal testimony and use that interpretation as a measuring stick with which to size up not only Charles Wesley but entire denominations that align with Wesley's theology. Such an exercise will allow Maples to conclude that no Wesleyan-Arminian accepts the doctrines of grace, and before we know it, this entire camp of believers will be castigated as false teachers, as is already happening in Calvinist circles. Furthermore, such a statement of Maples' brings consequences ideologically and culturally, not to mention, logically--consequences that, although not unique to our times, only serve to feed the woke mindset of cancel culture. Worst of all, statements like this that reject historical allowances for doctrinal disagreements and that unchristianize one's opponents betray a new definition of grace with which neither Wesley nor Spurgeon would agree.

Why Maples' Claim Isn't Logical

If we tackle first the fact that Maples' statement isn't even true on any level, we also must point out that this statement as worded would not pass inspection in a college freshman rhetoric class because of its poor logic. Not only is it written out of undue bias by passing off opinion as if it were fact; the opinion therein expressed is itself a fallacy known as a non sequitur. It is not necessarily true that Wesley rejected the "doctrines of grace" unless we know how Maples is defining "doctrines of grace." If Maples means Wesley rejected "salvation by grace," then Wesley could not even be saved. If Maples means what John MacArthur calls the "doctrines of grace," which are the tenets of Calvinism, then he owes this explanation to his audience rather than letting stand a false impression that Wesley rejected salvation by grace when he merely rejected Calvinism. Such a statement is a subtle way of saying that Calvinism is the only doctrine which teaches salvation by grace, which is simply not so.

Maples' seeming assumption that his terms didn't need to be defined is even more problematic than is an honest oversight in not defining them. He appears to take for granted that his audience agrees with him that Wesley could not have been saved if he rejected the "doctrines of grace." As a result, the fact that Wesley wrote a theologically correct Christmas carol is a bit of a fluke in Maples' mind--an aberration that somehow occurred despite Wesley himself. Such a denigrating statement flies in the face of church history. Wesley did not merely give "the Church a hymn." He gave the Church not only hundreds of hymns but thousands of hymns--conservatively, 6000, with some estimates of 9000--hundreds of which have found their way into hymnals of all orthodox denominations, Calvinist included, for three hundred years.

Maples is clearly not coming from a defensible position, and it is his own failure to define grace that raises the biggest red flag. If by "grace" he actually means "election," he had better say so. But by glossing over the truth, he has uncovered his own indefensible position. If he didn't wish to go down a "rabbit trail" in his essay, he need not have made a fallacious statement in the first place. As it is, rather than making us think less of Wesley, he has undermined his own ethos as a journalist by causing anyone who knows anything at all about Wesley to disagree with him. What Maples has done logically is to undermine Wesley's ethos by questioning his ability to write any hymns at all, yet he has betrayed his own ethos as a Calvinist in not being transparent with his terms. Rather than paying his logical dues, he relies instead on either his audience's prior knowledge to insert an appropriate definition or upon his audience's false impressions reached by his own equivocation. Where is the intellectual honesty in this?

If Maples' statement were the primary focus of his article, he would have created a straw man not only by condemning a position he fails to define but by assuming that his position didn't need to be defined because his echo chambers already agree with him. Is this the first time he has done this? I doubt it, given how deeply he embeds this statement into his larger argument, as if making statements like this, which I would call a cheap shot, come naturally to him. To be honest, I don't know that, so I will be careful myself. So Maples' statement fails by its logical appeal alone. It is based on a fallacy and a straw man without a clear definition of terms. As such, it is inherently unfair.

Why Maples' Claim Isn't Ethical

Therefore, his statement also fails in its ethical appeal. Not only does Maples make an unethical statement by failing to define his terms; he has attacked the ethos by which Wesley wrote any of his hymns by assigning to him a faulty response to grace--a response Wesley did not have, unless by Maples' own Calvinistic definition of "doctrines of grace," which remains undisclosed. It simply is not ethical to use equivocation which perpetuates false impressions. Arguments are won on ideas or they are not won at all. How much easier would it have been for Maples simply to say that Wesley, although an Arminian with whom he disagrees theologically, nevertheless gave Christendom not only a powerful Christmas hymn but an impeccable view of redemption. What reason would he even have to argue that Wesley could do all this without even receiving grace himself? Statements like this are not only ungracious; they represent a moral blindness that has closed off the truth.

But Maples not only allows his readers to think he is speaking of "salvation by grace" when he is actually most likely referring to Calvinism which labels irresistible grace, predestination, the limited atonement, and total depravity as what MacArthur calls the "doctrines of grace," he does so as if that is the only proper understanding of grace. And this he does without a shred of evidence, for there is none. The fact remains that not a single major theologian in the 300 years since Wesley's passing has ever accused Wesley of rejecting salvation by grace. This single statement by Maples drops like a bomb on anyone who loves Wesley and who had confidence in him. It reads like an idle word for which we will be held accountable on the Judgment Day. For if Wesley indeed rejected grace and thereby salvation, then none of his hymns with the exception of this one can be sung with confidence. His rich influence over Christians today who live so carelessly and so flippantly will also be dismissed with a thoughtless word.

Sadly, it would appear that Maples knows what he is doing. Does he intend to discredit Wesley while also insulating himself from his own critics who might wonder why he gave one of Wesley's hymns the time of day? With whom does Maples consort that he would need to take a swipe at a man who stands taller than any Christian hymn writer today? It doesn't matter whether Maples' remarks are intentionally dishonest; he owes his readers valid reasons why he feels himself qualified to dismiss the good opinion of hundreds of years of church history. I have attended both Baptist and Arminian churches for many years and have never, not even one time, heard anyone question the testimony of either Charles or John Wesley. It simply isn't done among anyone who values a Biblical view of grace that includes faith and repentance for salvation. Maples' tactics call into question his other unsavory comments about Christians today. They also hint at a larger trend among conservative Christians to overcorrect ecumenism by cancelling brothers in Christ who hold doctrines different from their own--doctrines over which godly men have disagreed for centuries without negating the central Gospel.

Why Maples' Claim Implies a New Definition of Grace

Maples' statement also requires a revision of church history to align with his new definition of grace. Not only can Maples' statement about Wesley be easily disproved, it signals the entrance of a Trojan Horse invading the Christian faith today. "Grace" doesn't mean to the Hyper-Calvinist what it meant to Whitefield and to Spurgeon. It is actually "code" for something very different. Given the fact that not one major theologian in the three hundred years since Wesley ever accused him of not believing in salvation by grace or of not being saved, Maples' statement actually betrays a day in which the grace of both Wesley and Spurgeon has been redefined. It also leans towards the Hyper-Calvinism that embraces antinomianism, particularly if the reasons Maples rejects Wesley's understanding of grace link to the Wesleys' message of faith, repentance, and personal holiness.  Only if we assume that the Wesleys' message of personal holiness equates to salvation by works can we even come close to branding either one of them as having "rejected" the "doctrines of grace." 

Why Maples Should Accept, Not Reject, Wesley

But the Wesleys did not believe in holiness by works but by faith.  The Wesleys believed that sanctification is every bit as much the Holy Spirit's work as is justification and that both works of grace are essential to full salvation.  This message is abundantly clear in Wesley's great hymns.  Not only did Charles Wesley not reject the biblical "doctrines of grace" which include both justification and sanctification, there is not a hymnist in history who has used more Scripture than Wesley to celebrate both works of grace--not even Isaac Watts. It would be difficult to explain how hundreds of Wesley's hymns made their way across the centuries into Calvinist hymn books if Wesley had rejected "the doctrines of grace."  The great hymn, "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling" attributes all work of grace in the heart to our Great Redeemer's love; "O, For a Thousand Tongues to Sing" sings the triumphs of His grace and His power to make the foulest clean; "And Can It Be" speaks how our Savior "left His Father's throne, so free, so infinite His grace"; and "Jesus, Lover of My Soul" makes as clear as the English language is capable of making anything that salvation comes entirely through dependence upon Christ.  

The simple truth is that Charles Wesley did not reject the "doctrines of grace" as taught by Scripture long before John Calvin.  No one can be saved apart from grace, and if Wesley did indeed reject salvation by grace and was, therefore, not saved, neither George Whitefield nor Charles Spurgeon had any business expressing for both Charles and John Wesley their profound respect and endorsement as brothers in Christ.  However, not only did both Calvinist preachers do exactly that, theological disagreements notwithstanding, Whitefield requested that John Wesley preach his funeral, which he did with great love and honor, and Spurgeon said he wished he could add two apostles to the Twelve--George Whitefield and John Wesley.  Spurgeon and Whitefield stand with the three-hundred-year-old tradition that respected Charles Wesley as a champion of grace.  

How is it that our theological forebears were able to regard each others' differences charitably when those differences did not violate cardinal doctrines but instead represented valid interpretations of the complexities in Scripture?  They seem to have known something we have forgotten today:  two godly men can disagree in their interpretations of Scripture's definition of holiness and neither of them be a false teacher.  Instead of seeing each others' views as heretical, Whitefield and Wesley were able to revere and deeply love one another. But I wonder if The Dissenter has departed from the historic graciousness of Christian brothers who disagree.  As have our woke cultural counterparts, it would appear that the church today has effectively cancelled the healthy debate of the centuries by vilifying those who disagree with them.  We have utterly lost the mutual respect that great Calvinist and Arminian men of God had for one another in days gone by.     

It is begging the question to imply that these "doctrines of grace" are taught in Scripture with no other possible interpretation.  The truth is that the Calvinist interpretation of grace is not the only orthodox understanding of grace historically or biblically.  To reject these teachings as the "doctrines of grace" is not to reject salvation by grace.  On the contrary, it is to reject a theology that narrows grace to an elite few, when Charles and John Wesley believed that Jesus' use of the word "all" and "whosoever" meant exactly that.  The problem is that grace itself has been redefined today in ways foreign even to historic Calvinists such as Spurgeon.  Neither Spurgeon nor Whitefield would preach any gospel that did not demand faith and repentance, which are now falsely rebranded as "works" among hyper-Calvinists today.

Why Maples Must Reject James, John, and Jesus if He Rejects Wesley

If the current ungraciousness to the Wesleys arises from this heretical view, it is small wonder that their message of personal holiness would be spun as salvation by works apart from grace.  When we begin equating the message of personal holiness which the Wesleys preached to their dying day with works salvation, as if our behavior is irrelevant to our state of grace, we must also reject the teachings of James the brother of Christ, who said a man is not justified by faith alone but also by works (James 2:24).  We must also reject the words of the Apostle John as stated in I John 3:4-10 and numerous other passages.  If we say we walk in the light and continue in sin, we are liars.  Jesus Himself teaches in John 15 and in many other passages that we must abide in the Vine or be cut off.  If the Wesleys embraced such teachings from Scripture, and they did, that does not equate to a rejection of grace.  It is an exercise of ongoing faith--for by grace are we saved through faith, Ephesians 2:8-9.  

Why Maples Should Reject Hyper-Calvinism

But modern-day Calvinism has erroneously called faith a work, saying we are saved by grace alone--striking "through faith" from the record.  It is this grace alone--grace by decree regardless of faith--that the Wesleys rejected.  But today's hyper-grace is a "grace" without repentance, which is certainly a false teaching by anyone's standards who knows even a modicum of Scripture.  The brand of Calvinism popular today would be rejected by Spurgeon himself as false teaching.  If Maples has issues with the Wesleys' view of unlimited grace, he should say so, but he shouldn't pretend that Wesley did not believe in grace when he believed it on a far grander scope than any Calvinist.  In fact, both Charles and John Wesley believed not only in grace but unlimited grace, unlike the Calvinists who say they believe in grace but who actually believe in salvation by decree, which is not grace at all.