(3) on that ground to remit all original sin and to give such grace as would enable all to attain eternal life,
(4) those who improve that grace and persevere to the end are ordained to be saved.? We may add that Wesley made the bestowal upon our depraved nature of ability to cooperate with God to be a matter of grace while Arminius regarded it as a matter of justice ? man without it not being accountable.
Wesleyanism was systematized by Watson, who, in his Institutes, 2:53- 55, 59, 77, although denying the imputation of Adam?s sin in any proper sense, yet declares that Limborch and others materially departed from the tenets of Arminius. They denied inward lusts and tendencies to be sinful till complied with and augmented by the will. But men universally choose to ratify these tendencies therefore they are corrupt in heart. If there be a universal depravity of will previous to the actual choice, then it inevitably follows that though infants do not commit actual sin, yet that theirs is a sinful nature. As to infants, they are not indeed born justified and regenerate so that to say original sin is taken away, as to infants, by Christ, is not the correct view of the case, for the reasons before given but they are all born under ?the free gift,? the effects of the ?righteousness? of one, which is extended to all men and this free gift is bestowed on them in order to justification of life, the adjudging of the condemned to live. Justification in adults is connected with repentance and faith but in infants, we do not know how. The Holy Spirit may be given to children. Divine and effectual influence may be exerted on them, to cure the spiritual death and corrupt tendency of their nature.?
It will be observed that Watson?s Wesleyanism is much more near to Scripture than what we have described, and properly described, as Armenianism proper. Pope, in his Theology, follows Wesley and Watson, and (2:70-86) gives a valuable synopsis of the differences between Arminius and Wesley. Whedon and Raymond, in America, better represent original Armenianism. They hold that God was under obligation, to restore man?s ability, and yet they inconsistently speak of this ability as a gracious ability. Two passages from Raymond?s Theology show the inconsistency of calling that ?grace,? which God is bound in justice to bestow, in order to make man responsible: 2:84-86 ? ?The race came into existence under grace. Existence and justification are secured for it only through Christ; for, apart from Christ, punishment and destruction would have followed the first sin. So all gifts of the Spirit necessary to qualify him for the putting forth of free moral choices are secured for him through Christ. The Spirit of God is not a bystander but a
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?