What do you think?
Rate this book
Predestination Calmly Considered
John Wesley (1703 – 1791) was an Anglican divine and theologian. Wesley, along with George Whitefield and his brother Charles Wesley, founded Methodism. Wesley’s writings also played an integral part in the Holiness Movement. This edition of Wesley’s Predestination Calmly Considered includes a table of contents.
52 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 23, 2012
About the author
John Wesley
2,971 books263 followersJohn Wesley is recognized as the founder of Methodism. An acclaimed preacher, Wesley travelled extensively on horseback and drew large crowds for his outdoor sermons. A contemporary of William Wilberforce, Wesley was a strong voice opposing slavery in England and the United States. His influence upon modern Christianity can be seen by the large number of Methodist organizations in the Wesleyan tradition all over the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 24, 2019
A great book by a great man!
In this short book, the great John Wesley makes a compelling case for traditional or Armenian theology. He refutes many of the same doctrinal errors that many of our Calvinist friends make today.
In this short book, the great John Wesley makes a compelling case for traditional or Armenian theology. He refutes many of the same doctrinal errors that many of our Calvinist friends make today.
September 9, 2016
"Predestination Insanely Considered" might have been a better title. One positive was that he recognised that consistent Calvinism should lead one to embrace double predestination.
August 1, 2026
Having now read this pamphlet by John Wesley, it seems to me that JW [John Wesley] either didn't understand Calvinism and didn't read [or didn't read DEEPLY] the recommended books his friend and fellow great preacher George Whitefield recommended in his letter to him soon after JW decided to preach against Calvinism, or he was forgetful. Or worse, deceptive. Virtually all of JW's objections are answered by Whitefield's letter and the recommended books he gave to JW. I know because I've read the books Whitefield recommended. The remaining things which have any bite in JW's criticisms in this work are directly or indirectly related to Limited Atonement. But then Davenant and Amyraut [and others] had versions of the atonement that were in some sense general [rather than limited] combined with unconditional election. Davenant was a thoroughgoing Calvinist. So Calvinistic permutations like those take away the bite in Wesley's remaining criticisms.
JW's not deeply understanding Calvinism is seen in his many Strawman Representations [i.e. misrepresentations] of what Calvinism teaches, and how Calvinism would respond to his objections and criticisms. He doesn't Steelman either its teachings or its reponses to his common objections & criticisms.
Wesley also doesn't distinguish between types of Calvinism. Since there are different possible permutations regarding the finer details of Calvinism. Things can be mixed and matched differently. When he does target real versions of Calvinism or aspects of Calvinism, he criticizes the the most extreme views and options as if those are held by all Calvinists and as if they are necessary implications of all forms of Calvinism. But he doesn't always argue for it, but merely assumes it or asserts it without argument.
For example he doesn't consider that there are versions of Calvinism where there is a sense in which God can love the non-elect to some real degree. But Wesley mostly [or only] assumes versions of Calvinism where God only has hate toward the non-elect. For example, he doesn't engage much with infralapsarianism. He speaks as if supralapsarian [and the harsher versions of supralapsarianism] were the only consistent model, and constantly accuses Calvinism as teaching unconditional reprobation. When, in fact, some Calvinists, viz. infralapsarians, believe reprobation is conditional [conditioned on foreseen and/or foreordained sin]. Some modern infralapsarians believe in two aspects of reprobation. Preterition which is unconditional, and predamnation which is conditional [i.e. takes sin into account]. Whereas supralapsarians can either believe both aspects are unconditional, or agree with infralapsarians that the former is unconditional, while the latter is conditional. Though some Calvinists don't make the distinction of two aspects of reprobation.
There are a number of times Wesley asks where are the Calvinistic tenets of X, Y, Z in the Bible, then says he can't find them. This just goes to show again that he's not deeply familiar with Calvinism and hadn't read deeply Calvinist literature on the subject. Because had he, he would know where in the Bible Calvinists claim such doctrines are found. He doesn't need to agree with Calvinist interpretations of those passages, but he can at least acknowledge which passages Calvinists cite and then attempt to show how Calvinists misinterpret those passages. He does this for some passages, but fails to do the same for many passages Calvinists cite when supporting the very doctrines Wesley says have absolutely no support in Scripture. A concrete example is in section 61 (or 60 in some editions) when Wesley says nowhere in Scripture does God give some persons to the Son for assured salvation. Yet, Calvinists often cite John 6, 10 & 17 [among other passages] for that very concept.
Here's another example. In section 68 [67 in some editions] he says he finds no passages that teach that God would preserve true believers [basically the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints]. But he doesn't mention, or doesn't know about passages like 1 John 3:9; 2:19; Jer. 32:40 (the whole verse, esp. 40c & 40d). There are many more passages Calvinists can cite. But why doesn't Wesley address any of these three and attempt to give a better interpretation on them than Calvinists do? Surely he had read the Bible in its entirety. It's understandable if he hadn't memorized every verse. None of us have. But had he read deeply the defenses of Calvinism people [including his dear friend George Whitefield] had recommended to him, then he would have known some of the passages Calvinists would cite to support the doctrine, and then Wesley would have had opportunity to address them. His was an apparently lazy anti-Calvinism. He attacked a major position without even taking the time to thoroughly acquaint himself with the case for the position so as to not embarrass himself in his polemics.
I'm now going to now read John Gill's response to this pamphlet by Wesley, titled "The Doctrine of Predestination."
I mentioned how famous Calvinist preacher George Whitefield wrote a letter to his friend John Wesley [himself also a famous, but Arminian, preacher] and recommended some Calvinistic works for him to read so as to educate himself with the Biblical case for Calvinism.
Whitefield wrote in the letter the following excerpt:
I've read and reviewed those works. Here are links to my reviews with links to those works by Edwards, Coles, Cooper:
Veritas Redux by John Edwards
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7461245259
A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty by Elisha Coles
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6480695017
The Doctrine of Predestination Unto Life, Explained and Vindicated: In Four Sermons by William Cooper
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7619543281
JW's not deeply understanding Calvinism is seen in his many Strawman Representations [i.e. misrepresentations] of what Calvinism teaches, and how Calvinism would respond to his objections and criticisms. He doesn't Steelman either its teachings or its reponses to his common objections & criticisms.
Wesley also doesn't distinguish between types of Calvinism. Since there are different possible permutations regarding the finer details of Calvinism. Things can be mixed and matched differently. When he does target real versions of Calvinism or aspects of Calvinism, he criticizes the the most extreme views and options as if those are held by all Calvinists and as if they are necessary implications of all forms of Calvinism. But he doesn't always argue for it, but merely assumes it or asserts it without argument.
For example he doesn't consider that there are versions of Calvinism where there is a sense in which God can love the non-elect to some real degree. But Wesley mostly [or only] assumes versions of Calvinism where God only has hate toward the non-elect. For example, he doesn't engage much with infralapsarianism. He speaks as if supralapsarian [and the harsher versions of supralapsarianism] were the only consistent model, and constantly accuses Calvinism as teaching unconditional reprobation. When, in fact, some Calvinists, viz. infralapsarians, believe reprobation is conditional [conditioned on foreseen and/or foreordained sin]. Some modern infralapsarians believe in two aspects of reprobation. Preterition which is unconditional, and predamnation which is conditional [i.e. takes sin into account]. Whereas supralapsarians can either believe both aspects are unconditional, or agree with infralapsarians that the former is unconditional, while the latter is conditional. Though some Calvinists don't make the distinction of two aspects of reprobation.
There are a number of times Wesley asks where are the Calvinistic tenets of X, Y, Z in the Bible, then says he can't find them. This just goes to show again that he's not deeply familiar with Calvinism and hadn't read deeply Calvinist literature on the subject. Because had he, he would know where in the Bible Calvinists claim such doctrines are found. He doesn't need to agree with Calvinist interpretations of those passages, but he can at least acknowledge which passages Calvinists cite and then attempt to show how Calvinists misinterpret those passages. He does this for some passages, but fails to do the same for many passages Calvinists cite when supporting the very doctrines Wesley says have absolutely no support in Scripture. A concrete example is in section 61 (or 60 in some editions) when Wesley says nowhere in Scripture does God give some persons to the Son for assured salvation. Yet, Calvinists often cite John 6, 10 & 17 [among other passages] for that very concept.
Here's another example. In section 68 [67 in some editions] he says he finds no passages that teach that God would preserve true believers [basically the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints]. But he doesn't mention, or doesn't know about passages like 1 John 3:9; 2:19; Jer. 32:40 (the whole verse, esp. 40c & 40d). There are many more passages Calvinists can cite. But why doesn't Wesley address any of these three and attempt to give a better interpretation on them than Calvinists do? Surely he had read the Bible in its entirety. It's understandable if he hadn't memorized every verse. None of us have. But had he read deeply the defenses of Calvinism people [including his dear friend George Whitefield] had recommended to him, then he would have known some of the passages Calvinists would cite to support the doctrine, and then Wesley would have had opportunity to address them. His was an apparently lazy anti-Calvinism. He attacked a major position without even taking the time to thoroughly acquaint himself with the case for the position so as to not embarrass himself in his polemics.
I'm now going to now read John Gill's response to this pamphlet by Wesley, titled "The Doctrine of Predestination."
I mentioned how famous Calvinist preacher George Whitefield wrote a letter to his friend John Wesley [himself also a famous, but Arminian, preacher] and recommended some Calvinistic works for him to read so as to educate himself with the Biblical case for Calvinism.
Whitefield wrote in the letter the following excerpt:
But I referred you at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards' Veritas Redux which I recommended to you in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty. Be pleased to read those; and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper, of Boston, in New England which I also sent you, and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered.- from Whitefield's letter to Wesley which is freely online HERE
I've read and reviewed those works. Here are links to my reviews with links to those works by Edwards, Coles, Cooper:
Veritas Redux by John Edwards
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7461245259
A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty by Elisha Coles
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6480695017
The Doctrine of Predestination Unto Life, Explained and Vindicated: In Four Sermons by William Cooper
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7619543281
August 4, 2025
There are two main problems with his arguments.
1) He places Divine Will and human will on equal footing. This is a categorical mistake. Man may be free to choose between good and evil, between right and left, and between salvation and damnation, but that does not mean his choice is inconsistent with God's purpose. To illustrate with an analogy: does the fact that all quantum description of nature is inherently random leave no room for the sovereignty of God over all creation? Divine Will and human will are, so to speak, operating in different dimensions, and they can be orthogonal to each other so that one does not infringe on the other.
2) His theology presupposes exegesis. There are many scriptural proofs which he gives that are just simply taken out of context. It is true that the Reformers likewise had written expositions of a text which modern reformed scholars would refute. But that is to say, we must start with a careful exegesis on a text, and then arrive at a conclusion, not the other way around. It seems like his philosophical considerations heavily influence his reading of many verses of which I have seen better expositions in modern scholarship.
I think "calmly" is just a polite way of saying, "passionately."
1) He places Divine Will and human will on equal footing. This is a categorical mistake. Man may be free to choose between good and evil, between right and left, and between salvation and damnation, but that does not mean his choice is inconsistent with God's purpose. To illustrate with an analogy: does the fact that all quantum description of nature is inherently random leave no room for the sovereignty of God over all creation? Divine Will and human will are, so to speak, operating in different dimensions, and they can be orthogonal to each other so that one does not infringe on the other.
2) His theology presupposes exegesis. There are many scriptural proofs which he gives that are just simply taken out of context. It is true that the Reformers likewise had written expositions of a text which modern reformed scholars would refute. But that is to say, we must start with a careful exegesis on a text, and then arrive at a conclusion, not the other way around. It seems like his philosophical considerations heavily influence his reading of many verses of which I have seen better expositions in modern scholarship.
I think "calmly" is just a polite way of saying, "passionately."
December 13, 2019
Well proven by Scripture
Bro Wesley proves his point against "predestination" by many infallible proofs of Scripture, which is the only Truth we can stand on.
Bro Wesley proves his point against "predestination" by many infallible proofs of Scripture, which is the only Truth we can stand on.
December 26, 2013
John Wesley really shows the bankruptcy of the Calvinist position. Even though the style is a bit antiquated it's easy to follow his arguments.
January 9, 2016
I think John Wesley could be a little snarky. I always have trouble reading his writings, though, so maybe it wasn't intended on his part.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews