The Great Truth: Universal Redemption (Unlimited Atonement)

Charles Wesley is remembered more as a hymnist than as a theologian. Even so, Charles was a passionate preacher and a deeply biblical thinker. He traveled and preached the gospel to tens of thousands of hearers. His theology greatly influenced his preaching.

What theological doctrines impacted his gospel preaching? Charles considered himself to be a man of one message. That message was the eternal purpose of God to reconcile sinners to Himself through Christ by faith. Charles also considered the everlasting gospel itself to be built upon two great truths: universal redemption and Christian perfection. Both of these terms are liable to be misunderstood if we don’t allow Charles to define his own terms.

This post will focus on the first of these great truths: universal redemption. The more common modern term for this doctrine is unlimited atonement.

A Man of One Message

Charles records preaching to about a thousand hearers in the street in his journal on August 24, 1739.

I have but one subject, on which I discoursed from 2 Cor. 5:19, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.’ I besought them earnestly to be reconciled, and the rebels seemed inclinable to lay down their arms.

Charles Wesley, MS Journal

Charles was a man with one subject. He preached to multitudes and witnessed this truth to individuals and small groups with fervor, urgency, and compassion. He wanted to publish to the very ends of the earth the good news that a Savior has come into the world to save sinners.

Charles wanted the whole world – every man, woman, and child – to hear the report that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. When Charles speaks about universal redemption, he means that this reconciliation is freely available to all.

This was in direct contradiction to the doctrines of absolute predestination and reprobation preached by the followers of John Calvin.

To be clear, Charles Wesley was not a Calvinist. He didn’t consider himself to be an Arminian, either. (For more on this, the interested reader is encouraged to check out our articles: Charles Wesley Against Calvinism and Was Charles Wesley an Arminian?)

Charles was a Christian. He had been justified freely by the grace of God through faith in Christ. As he read Scripture, this same invitation was available to all: believe upon Christ and be saved.

Accordingly, he prayed and preached as if this message could be received by all if they heard it.

And, Charles thought his friend and co-laborer, fellow Methodist George Whitefield, was a hypocrite for acting contrary to his Calvinistic doctrine when preaching the gospel. On hearing the a description of Whitefield’s preaching by a trusted friend, Charles commented:

Assured me he had preached barefaced reprobation. The people fled before the reprobating lion. But again and again, as he observed them depart, the preacher of sad tidings called them back with general offers of salvation. Vain and empty offers indeed! What availed his telling them that for ought he knew, they might all be elect. He did not believe them all elect; he could not. Therefore, he only mocked them with an empty word of invitation; and if God sent him to preach the gospel to every creature, God, according to his scheme, sent him to deceive the greatest part of mankind!

Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Monday, May 4, 1741, emphasis original.

When Whitefield called to those who were rejecting the message and extended to them general offers of salvation, Charles called foul.

He knew the implications of Whitefield’s Calvinistic theology. George didn’t believe that everyone he cried out to was elect. Therefore, Charles said that he only pretended to offer them salvation. Charles thought Whitefield was mocking them by preaching contrary to his theological implications.

Charles viewed the implications of reprobation to be horrifying. In particular, the implications this doctrine had on the character of God.

Charles believed that if Calvin’s followers were correct, God had sent preachers into the world to deceive the majority of their hearers. By preaching to them a command to repent and believe that they could not obey. To preach a Savior that they could not receive. And to offer to them a salvation that could never be theirs.

Charles didn’t reject this thought on emotional grounds. His rejection was theological.

An Argument Against Limited Atonement

Charles’s view of the atonement was based in theology. It was founded upon the Scriptures. He thought that those who denied this truth and adhered to the Calvinistic (or “particular”) scheme were in error because they elevated their theological system above the clear teaching of Scripture.

As he met people who held to Calvinism, Charles became more and more convinced that they were in error. He grew in his assurance that the atonement was freely available to all, not limited only to some.

I am more an more confirmed in the truth by its miserable opposers.

Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Tuesday, May 19, 1741.

Charles presented this particular opponent to unlimited atonement with a strong dilemma.

Talked lately with Mr Hooper and urged him with this dilemma: ‘For what did God make this reprobate? To be damned, or to be saved?’ He durst not say God made even Judas to be damned, and would not say God made him to be saved. I desired to know for what third end he could make him, but all the answer I could get was: ‘It is not a fair question.’

Ibid.

This particular Calvinist was unwilling to say why God made Judas: to be damned or to be saved. Certainly, not every Calvinist would evade the question. But the real teeth of Charles’s theological argument came next.

Next I asked whether he that believeth not shall not be damned because he believeth not? ‘Yes,’ he answered, and I replied, ‘Because he believeth not what?’

Ibid.

With true rhetorical skill Charles has laid an inescapable theological net. Both he and his opponent believe that people will be condemned if they do not believe. On this they agree. But taking it a step further, we must answer, if they fail to believe what?

Here he hesitated and I was forced to help him out with the Apostle’s answer, ‘that they all might be damned who believed not the truth.’

Ibid.

Charles quoted from 2 Thessalonians 2:12.

‘What truth?’ I asked again, ‘but the truth of the gospel of their salvation. If it is not the gospel of their salvation, and yet they are bound to believe it, then they are bound to believe a lie, under pain of damnation. And the Apostle should have said that they all might be damned, who believed not a lie.’

Ibid.

The theological net is closing in. The force of the argument is strong.

They are damned because they do not believe the truth. Had they believed the truth, they would still be damned. Because, according to the doctrine of reprobation, they were eternally damned. The truth is that they will be damned. But, they are damned for failing to believe the truth?

Charles thought this conclusion was absurd. He was using a common principle of logic used in arguments called reductio ad absurdum (click for the Wikipedia page). Charles thought the conclusion of the Calvinistic doctrine is absurd, so it should be rejected.

But Charles continued,

Farther I asked him, ‘Why does God command all men everywhere to repent? Why does he call and offer his grace to reprobates? Why does his Spirit strive with every child of man for some time, though not always?’ I could get no answer, and so read him one of his friend Calvin’s: ‘God speaketh to them that they may be the deafer, he gives light to them that they may be the blinder, he offers instruction to them that they may be the more ignorant, and uses the remedy that they may not be healed.’ Calvin’s Institutes, 3. c. 24.

Ibid., emphasis original.

Charles offered Calvin’s own words to this Calvinist who lacked his own response. Charles knew and understood the Calvinistic claim that God used the truth to make reprobates believe a lie. He thought the assertion was pitiful.

Never did I meet with a more pitiful advocate of a more pitiful cause. And yet I believe he could say as much for reprobation as another. I told him his predestination had got a millstone about its neck and would infallibly be drowned, if he did not part it from reprobation.

Ibid., emphasis original.

Charles did not view this Calvinistic doctrine as a biblical truth. He viewed it as a man-made doctrine. That’s why he told this particular man that the doctrine of predestination he held to was his. That is, it wasn’t what the Scriptures teach about predestination.

Later that same day, Charles found more proof of the truth of the universal offer of salvation.

He who prays for all men himself and commands us to pray for all men, was with us, and showed us with the demonstration of his Spirit that he is not willing any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.

Ibid.

While preaching the gospel, Charles knew God was with him. And Charles rested in the character of God.

Charles said that Jesus Himself prays for all men. This is true. You can read it in John 17:20. You can read His command to His people to pray for all men in 1 Timothy 2:1.

You can also read that Jesus promises to help His followers succeed by drawing all men to Himself when He is lifted up in John 12:32; in sending the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin righteousness, and judgment in John 16:8-11; and the truth that the grace of God has appeared and brings salvation to all men in Titus 2:11. These are just a few of the verses Charles would have had in mind.

Biblical or Systematic?

Charles was aware of the theological systems. He just wasn’t persuaded by them. Not when they went against the clear teachings of Scripture.

All man-made systems of theology will err somewhere. But Charles believed God’s Word was inerrant. Therefore, he attempted to build his theology on the words of Scripture, not the words of men. Even esteemed theologians.

In most theological systems, the doctrines stand or fall together. So it is argued in this case.

In Calvinism, the doctrine of Total Depravity requires God to do something to save because humans are completely incapable. Therefore, this doctrine leads naturally to Unconditional Election.

Unconditional Election becomes necessary because God’s grace was the prerequisite. It couldn’t be based on anything in the person. So it must be completely dependent upon God’s free and sovereign choice.

If it is only based on God’s eternal choice, then Limited Atonement is the next logical step. God ordained from eternity past who would be saved. Then God sent Christ into the world to accomplish their salvation. Christ, according to this system, came to die for those God already elected for salvation. And only for them.

Then, to assure their salvation the grace of God is Irresistible and those that are saved will Persevere to the end to the glory of God.

The system makes sense. It is logical. Charles didn’t care about the logical coherence. He cared more whether it was biblical or not.

The Bible teaches regarding God’s plan of salvation that His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. In fact, His ways and His thoughts are as much higher than ours as the heavens are higher than the earth (Isaiah 55:6-9).

So why rely on human reasoning instead of what God’s tells His people?

Charles agreed with the starting point of human inability. He agreed 100% that humans need the grace of God. No one can, or ever could, save themselves.

Yet, Charles believed that the clear testimony of Scripture was contrary to the doctrines of unconditional election and of limited atonement. So, he rejected them.

Instead of inventing a secondary will of God to explain away certain passages, or appealing to infallible knowledge of the hidden eternal mysteries of God in eternity past, Charles took Scripture at face value.

God’s word declares that God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked but that His desire is for their repentance (e.g., Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11). God’s word declares that He sent forth His Son to save sinners out of His love for the world, not just the elect (e.g., John 3:16).

Charles preached Christ as the Savior of all men, but especially of them who believe (1 Timothy 4:10).

As Charles read Scripture, he asserted that grace was necessary for salvation. He just believed that God’s grace was available to all. The grace of God made it possible for faith to come by hearing the gospel. Charles prayed fervently for people to receive power to believe from God when confronted with the gospel.

(For more on prayer, check out our article Charles Wesley on Prayer.)

The salvation of the individual was then conditional on their faith. God was pleased to save all who believe in Christ. Therefore, Christ’s sacrificial atonement did not need to be limited only to the elect.

In Charles’s preaching and teaching, the doctrines of Conditional Election and Limited atonement were not biblical. They weren’t necessary logically, either, if you didn’t take all of the Calvinist assumptions and assertions as gospel.

Since the particular scheme of Calvinism stands or falls together, Charles rejected the system. That doesn’t mean he believed the opposite of Calvinistic theology on every point. He agreed with the biblical aspects and rejected the aspects which were built on human reasoning instead of a clear text of Scripture.

(For more of Charles’s thoughts against Calvinism, you may enjoy this post.)

His rejection of the particular scheme of Calvinism, in particular the doctrines of absolute predestination, reprobation, unconditional election, and limited atonement, necessarily led to modifications and rejection of some of their resulting doctrines like Perseverance and Assurance.

Universal Redemption, Not Universalism

It is sometimes argued that if you believe in Unlimited Atonement then you believe God will save everyone in the end. The argument goes as follows:

1. Christ died for the sin of all
2. God would be unjust to punish sin twice
3. Therefore, all will be saved by Christ’s sacrifice.

The belief that all will be saved is referred to as Universalism. The language Charles Wesley used of Universal Redemption may cause some to be confused.

To be clear: Charles Wesley was not a Universalist.

Instead, Charles believed that the love, mercy, and grace of God offered salvation to all. This offer was made in earnest. But it must be received by faith. The argument looks more like this:

1. God punished sin in Christ, not in Adam
2. All who believe the gospel are transferred from being in Adam to being in Christ
3. So, all who believe the gospel are saved and all who do not believe will perish justly for their own sin.

God does not punish sin twice. Instead, He has provided a Savior for the world. All who believe and who take refuge in the Savior will be saved from the wrath that is to come. Much like Noah and his family were saved from judgment by being hidden in the Ark.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:22

Jesus is the Ark of salvation. Salvation is found in Him. And all are commanded to believe and take refuge in the Savior. Sadly, many will not believe and so will not be saved.

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Colossians 1:13-14

As discussed above, Charles believed that the atonement was unlimited in its scope but it was conditionally applied. That condition was faith in Jesus.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

John 3:36

Some theologians speak of conditional election in the terms of God looking through the corridors of time and saving those who He foresaw would believe.

That wasn’t on Charles’s mind. Charles preached and prayed for people to receive power to believe when they were hearing the gospel. He knew that if they believed upon Christ they would receive the atonement by grace through faith.

Universal in its scope. Limited in its application. Not all will be saved because not all will believe. However, all can believe if they hear. All should be confronted with the message of the gospel and told of God’s command that all people everywhere should repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30-31).

Charles believed that every person was capable of being saved. He reserved the terminology of “the elect” for those who have believed.

To Charles, Scripture was clear that salvation was only applied to those who put their faith in the Son of God. Just as clear was that God was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Theological Hymnist

Charles wrote many hymns on Universal Redemption. He also had themes of the atonement running through countless others. In 1740-41, Charles published two series of Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love.

George Whitefield wrote to John Wesley in 1741 about these hymns and grumbled against Charles, saying, “Dear Brother Charles is more and more rash. He has lately printed some very bad hymns.”

A short example which summarizes many of the points relating to Charles’s view on the Unlimited Atonement was entitled “For the Kingswood Colliers.” This was a group Charles preached the gospel to many times.

1. My brethren beloved, Your calling ye see:

In Jesus approved, No goodness have we:

No riches or merit, No wisdom or might,

But all things inherit Through Jesus’ right.

2. Our God would not have One reprobate die:

Who all men would have Hath no man pass’d by:

His boundless compassion On sinners doth call;

He offers salvation Through mercy to all.

In Tyson, Charles Wesley: A Reader, 168.

Charles makes it clear that salvation is only in Christ. He also makes it clear that God’s mercy extends the offer to all.

He continues:

3. Yet not many wise His summons obey;

And great ones despise So vulgar a way;

And strong ones will never Their helplessness own,

Or stoop to find favour Through mercy alone.

4. And therefore our God The outcasts hath chose,

His righteousness show’d To heathen like us:

When wise ones rejected His offers of grace,

His goodness elected The foolish and base.

Ibid., 168-9.

Charles also makes it clear that many will reject God’s gracious offer of mercy in Christ. They will stumble over the vulgar way God has ordained to save sinners. They will cling to their own merits and perish in the way. The humble and weak will gladly receive what the proud and strong reject.

The hymn concludes:

5. To baffle the wise, and noble, and strong,

He bade us arise, An impotent throng:

Poor ignorant wretches We gladly embrace

A Prophet that teaches Salvation by grace.

6. The things that were not His mercy bids live;

His mercy unbought We freely receive,

His gracious compassion We thankfully prove,

And all our salvation Ascribe to His love.

Ibid., 169.

Charles also makes clear that salvation is only by grace. Humans are completely incapable and powerless to save themselves. The salvation of all who receive Christ can not be attributed to human merit. It can only be ascribed to His amazing love.

(For more of Charles’s quotes on Love, check out this post.)

Love Even For The Calvinists

As the schism grew between the Methodists over the issue of predestination, many sought to have Charles deviate from preaching the gospel. They wanted him to preach against predestination and the followers of Calvinism.

An example is recorded by Charles in his journal on Tuesday, November 18, 1740. After preaching the gospel at a pub, Charles encountered a friend who was also a Calvinist.

We were setting out from the public-house when God brought Howell Harris to us. All misunderstandings vanished at sight of each other, and our hearts were knit together as at the beginning.

Charles Wesley, MS Journal

The strain on their relationship was because of Howell’s preaching reprobation and absolute predestination. Although Charles was glad to see his friend, this joyous sentiment was not shared by all. The entry continues:

Before the Society several were with me, desiring me, now I had gotten him [Howell Harris], to reprove him openly. Some wanted me to preach against lay preaching; some against predestination, etc. In my discourse on Isaiah 60, a gentleman, who had come thither on purpose, interrupted me, by desiring I would now speak to Mr Harris, since I was sent for to disprove his errors, and Mr Wells, an experienced clergyman, sat by to moderate between us.

Ibid.

Charles was no stranger to controversy. Much of his ministry included reproving those in error. However, Charles demonstrates that his love for his fellow Christians exceeded his need to be right. He certainly disagreed with Howell Harris on predestination. But Charles wasn’t going to turn this into an opportunity to harshly reprove a fellow Christian for sport.

God gave me immediate recollection. I smiled at Satan’s imprudence, but turned aside the question with mildness, and thanks to the proposer. In vain he urged me to enter the lists with my friend. I quashed all farther importunity by declaring, ‘I am unwilling to speak of my brother Howell Harris, because, when I begin, I know not how to leave off, and should say so much good of him as some of you could not bear.’ The gentleman, disappointed of his hope, immediately departed.

Ibid., bold added.

The modern church could learn a great deal from Charles Wesley’s loving response. He refused to turn doctrinal disagreement into an opportunity to set Christians against one another.

Charles was not shy when disputing with those who denied the gospel or who were only externally religious. However, he believed Howell Harris to be a true brother in Christ.

A brother, like George Whitefield, who had a different understanding of the extent of the atonement and the nature of election. Charles still had so much more good to say about Howell than bad, that people would be disappointed who only wanted them to fight with one another.

Wouldn’t it be great if Christians today loved each other like this?

Related Questions

Are Methodists Calvinist or Arminian? Modern Methodist denominations are considered theologically Arminian. However, the original Methodists who lived during the lifetime of Charles and John Wesley were divided over predestination and other Calvinistic doctrines. George Whitefield was a prominent Calvinistic Methodist.

What is meant by Wesleyan Arminian? Arminian theology is typically divided into two major groups. Classical Arminians follow the teaching of Jacobus Arminius. Wesleyan Arminians follow a modified form of Arminian teaching based primarily on the teachings of John Wesley.