"Calvinistic" Hymn of Charles Wesley?

[Kaalvenist]

In J. I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, pp. 116, 117, Packer writes:

Thus the sovereignty of God in grace gave Paul hope of success as he preached to deaf ears, and held up Christ before blind eyes, and sought to move stony hearts. His confidence was that where Christ sends the gospel there Christ has His people --- fast bound at present in the chains of sin, but due for release at the appointed moment through a mighty renewing of their hearts as the light of the gospel shines into their darkness, and the Saviour draws them to Himself.

In a great hymn which he wrote shortly after his conversion (possibly the day after), Charles Wesley spoke of what had happened like this:

'Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray, ---
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.'

That is not only a vivid statement of experience; it is also a piece of excellent theology. This is precisely what happens to unconverted men and women wherever the gospel is preached. Paul knew that; hence his confidence and expectancy when evangelizing.

I've heard (and thought) for years that this was truly a "Calvinistic" line entering into the hymnology of Charles Wesley, based primarily on Packer's understanding of it.

However, certain factors lead me to think otherwise.

1. Charles Wesley wrote over 6,000 hymns, many of which explicitly set forth Arminian doctrine as truth, or explicitly attack Calvinistic doctrine. He seems to have had a pretty consistent track record in producing Arminian (rather than Calvinistic) hymns.

2. Although Packer tries to point to the fact that this hymn was written within days of the date Wesley gives for his conversion (which is true), Wesley continued to sing this hymn until the day of his death. If he was describing irresistible grace in the hymn, chances are that sometime before his death, he might have noticed the discrepancy. Or the millions of Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and other Wesleyan Arminians over the past couple hundred years might have noticed.

3. I'm now inclined to think that he is describing, not irresistible grace, but prevenient grace. So far as I remember from N.L. Rice's God Sovereign and Man Free, the Wesleys held to total depravity; but instead of individuals being taken from total depravity by irresistible grace, they believed that God extended a universal prevenient grace, which allowed men to then use their own free will in accepting or refusing the offer of salvation. Note that, in the hymn, it is not the general call of the gospel accompanied with the effectual call of the Spirit which looses the chains; instead, "Thine eye diffused a quickening ray" (whatever that means ). It concludes, "My chains fell off, MY HEART WAS FREE" (prevenient grace has taken its effect and granted man his free will); "I rose, went forth, and followed thee" (acting out of his free will).

Thoughts?

 

[sevenzedek]

When I have talked with some of the people I know who hold to an Arminian view of salvation, this is how far they are willing to agree with a biblical understanding of salvation. Then they will say, "Oh, but everyone has the power to believe whenever they want," because of some bible word like "whosoever" in John 3:16. The concept and implications of what it means to have an imprisoned will escapes the logic of many. It was difficult for me when I was wrestling with it. Another thing that I had to work through was the concept that I could choose while God is sovereign at the same time. I had to create another category of thought in order for the bible's pieces to fit together. This is challenging enough all on it's own, but the task seems all that much greater when it appears that people do not read very much bible, and the only verse they can quote, it seems, is John 3:16, saying, "It says, whosoever, whosoever, whosoever..." I don't mind beating a dead horse, so to speak, but I often find it very soothing to end the conversation right there. It is difficult to teach when someone does try to understand.

 

[Sola Gratia]

I have read through much of Wesley's works and from a surface reading he often seems to confused on this area, but perhaps that is because he seems to use the same language that Calvinists use. I would agree with the op however that Wesley is probably speaking of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace sounds really nice on the surface and it solves an awful lot of problems, except for its main problem which is not being found in the Bible. Don't misunderstand, I don't think true classical arminians are heretics or semi-pelagian as some are quick to claim because of the doctrine of prevenient grace. However, for someone who is in the process of leaving the UMC and has been there for quite a while, the common people who do not research or read theology certainly seem to fall into semi-pelagian theology which is its own problem as well. Theology as a whole is rather wishy-washy and is downplayed in the UMC and sometimes even the pastors go into semi-pelagianism. The problem then, is that they don't understand their own theology and so when trying to discuss theology with them their answers are not typically "the Bible says", but more along the lines of "yea, but this is what I've always believed". The main problem is typically most people will not question what they have been taught all of their lives, especially if they are religious.

Back to the point the op made, I really don't think Wesley was being Calvinistic.