By Mark K. Olson. This article was a paper presented at the George Whitefield 300 Conference, Pembroke College, Oxford, in 2014.
[To view the footnotes on this page, scroll down to the bottom of the page. Clicking on the hyperlinked footnotes will take you off site to the notes in the original article location.]
Introduction
When the Reverend George Whitefield ‘startled the nation’[1] with his preaching in the 1730s, it was his call to personal conversion that was the marrow of his message. From 1735 when he experienced his own conversion to 1740 when thousands were hanging on to his every word, Whitefield’s favourite subject was on the nature and necessity of the new birth, that is evangelical conversion.[2] Yet during these years Whitefield’s understanding of conversion evolved and took shape in some surprising ways. There were a number of sources and experiences that contributed to his mature doctrine of conversion. That his views evolved should be obvious since he experienced conversion as an Oxford Methodist and by 1740 was firmly committed to the Calvinist position as an evangelical. Still, there is more to the story of how Whitefield’s understanding of conversion developed than his embrace of Calvinism, and to ferret this out his views we will divide the period of 1735-1740 into three segments: (1) Whitefield as an Oxford Methodist, (2) Whitefield as an Evangelical Methodist, and (3) Whitefield as a Calvinistic Methodist.
Oxford Methodist (1735-36)
After publishing several Journal extracts that narrated his trans-Atlantic ministry in 1738 and 1739, Whitefield sat down in late August 1739 to write up a ‘short account’ covering from his birth in 1714 up to his ordination in 1736. Sandwiched in this autobiography is the narrative of his conversion in late May 1735.[3] He wrote the Short Account[4] for two main reasons: (1) having become a famous evangelist people would want to know how he was prepared for the ministry, and (2) he felt his account would spiritually benefit his readers.[5] The Short Account was published the next year and was later incorporated into his Journal. From the introduction and the account, it becomes clear Whitefield tells his story from the perspective of his present standing in 1739 as a famous evangelist who was committed to the Calvinist position. As we will see below, when we compare his Short Account (and Journal)with his letters from the same period, it becomes evident that his later evangelical Calvinist convictions coloured how he told his story in the Journal.
Turning to his conversion account, Whitefield shared his involvement with Oxford Methodism and his tutelage under the Wesleys. In 1734, with Charles Wesley’s encouragement, Whitefield read Henry Scougal’s The Life of God in the Soul of Man and realized for the first time that true religion is a matter of the heart.[6] From his later perspective, Whitefield saw this revelation as the moment when he first realized his need for the new birth (“I must be a new creature”). However, this was a core belief within Oxford Methodism at the time. Nearly ten years earlier John Wesley had been spiritually awakened by his reading of Jeremy Taylor, Thomas `a Kempis, and William Law. Like Whitefield, Wesley saw for the first time that ‘true religion was seated in the heart’ and this led him to ‘alter the whole form of my conversation and set in earnest upon a new life’.[7] This became the theological rationale for the entire program of discipleship within Oxford Methodism. By the mid-1730s the Wesley brothers were both teaching the necessity of a new birth experience defined as the single intention (i.e. full devotion to God).[8] That Whitefield understood Scougal along similar lines is confirmed by his decision to join the Oxford Methodists and begin to “live by rule”—as he later called the Methodist program of discipleship.[9]
Describing the circumstances leading up to his conversion, Whitefield tells how he initially felt embarrassed to be seen publicly with the Methodists and follows this up by narrating his intense spiritual conflicts with his inner sinfulness. Framed as a great conflict with Satan himself, Whitefield’s struggles with his “corruptions” led to a breakdown of his health, and for seven weeks following “Passion-week” he remained locked up in his room “groaning under an unspeakable pressure both of body and mind.”[10] He then shared how God set him free from his ordeal:
“One day, perceiving an uncommon drought and a disagreeable clamminess in my mouth and using things to allay my thirst, but in vain, it was suggested to me, that when Jesus Christ cried out, ‘I thirst,’ his sufferings were near at an end. Upon which I cast myself down on the bed, crying out, ‘I thirst! I thirst!’ Soon after this, I found and felt in myself that I was delivered from the burden that had so heavily oppressed me. The spirit of mourning was taken from me, and I knew what it was truly to rejoice in God my Saviour; and, for some time, could not avoid singing psalms wherever I was; but my joy gradually became more settled, and, blessed be God, has abode and increased in my soul, saving a few casual intermissions, ever since.”[11]
What stands out about this conversion account is the complete lack of evangelical language and concepts. There is no mention of faith in Christ, salvation by faith, Christ’s atonement, assurance of salvation, forgiveness, new birth, adoption, or justification. All these terms and concepts are surprisingly missing. Although evangelicals, then and now (including Whitefield later on), have interpreted this event as his evangelical conversion because of the release of burden and resultant joy he felt. However, this interpretation is read into the account. Most likely, when Whitefield wrote the Short Account in 1739, he relied on his Oxford diary to spell out the details and this explains why his conversion account glaringly lacks any inclusion of evangelical concepts and terminology.[12]
But this leads to a more penetrating query: what exactly did Whitefield hope to attain in 1735? What exactly was he seeking at the time? He says he was thirsty, but for what? The chapter narrates his struggles and conflicts but says little about what he hoped to attain. The silence leads us to look elsewhere for an answer. When we turn to his letters from the same period, a couple of significant insights stand out:
First, Whitefield’s soteriology in the mid-1730s clearly reflects that of Oxford Methodism. His aim was to subdue and replace sinful passions with a “complex habit of virtues” in order to attain inward holiness and thereby prepare for entrance into the eternal kingdom.[13]
Second, by March 1735 Whitefield had come to believe that a breakthrough was necessary to kick-start the sanctification process and to thereby attain a single intention toward God.[14] Scougal had spoken of the necessity of a “stroke of divine omnipotence” to effect the “mighty change” from a life dominated by “animal life” to one swayed by “divine life.”[15] In other words, what Whitefield sought after was a single intention—that single-minded devotion which William Law taught was the new birth.[16] However, Whitefield found that his sinful inclinations were far too strong for him to break free in his own strength. What he needed was a stroke of divine power that would break the stranglehold of these inclinations and thus enable him to serve God with a single-minded devotion and thereby empower him to work out his salvation in preparation of the final judgment (i.e. final justification) and eternal kingdom. So, in 1735 Whitefield did believe he experienced the new birth, but he understood its nature and necessity through the lens of his Oxford Methodist soteriology.
Evangelical Methodist (1736-38)
The factors that primarily shaped Whitefield’s understanding of conversion during this period were (1) the departure of the Wesleys to America, thereby leaving Whitefield to largely figure out his own spiritual growth, (2) his reading of Calvinist authors and works, and (3) the immediate impact of his preaching. During the period of 1736-1738 Whitefield continued to identify conversion as the new birth and his views on how the new birth is attained continued to reflect the soteriology of Oxford Methodism. That is, up through 1738 Whitefield continued to teach the new birth is attained through struggle (called “pangs of the new birth”[17]), self-denial, practicing the means of grace, and imitating the life of Christ.[18] As he counselled his close friend Gabriel Harris, “Good dear Sir, never leave off watching, reading, praying, striving, till you experientially find Christ Jesus formed within you…Wrestle with God, beg him to hasten the new birth.”[19]
Nevertheless, the mention of “Christ formed within you” marks important developments in Whitefield’s doctrine of conversion. While an explicit “faith alone” nomenclature is not yet found (this comes more clear in 1739), the idea of faith uniting the believer to Christ and to Christ’s righteousness is present in his writings.[20] He acknowledged in his Journal that his views on justification were not that clear at this time.[21] However, he did move beyond Oxford Methodism by affirming a present justification consisting of the forgiveness of sins, and did at times refer to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers.[22] So an evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone was beginning to percolate in his thinking during these years.
Still, Whitefield’s central message remained the new birth. In keeping with Scougal and Matthew Henry’s descriptions,[23] he understood it to involve a change in one’s dispositional nature[24] and to represent the transition from an almost to an altogether Christian.[25] He began writing his famous sermon on the new birth on the eve of his ordination as deacon in June 1736, and in 1737 it was published several times.[26] In this sermon Whitefield defines the new birth as that “glorious change” in which the soul is “purged, purified, and cleansed” from its “natural dross…and leprosy by the blessed influences of the Holy Spirit.”[27] Grounding the necessity for such a thorough change on humanity’s inherited depravity in Adam, Whitefield pricked his audience, “Can any one conceive how such a filthy, corrupted, polluted wretch can dwell with an infinitely pure and holy God, before he is changed and rendered, in some measure, like him?”[28] Thus, by 1737 Whitefield was beginning to grasp that conversion involves two aspects—justification and new birth, the forgiveness of sin and a change in one’s nature[29]—but the emphasis remained on the second aspect: a “thorough, real, inward change of heart.”[30]
During this period, we see in Whitefield’s letters a proto-Calvinism developing in his thought. This leaning toward Calvinism seems to have developed from two primary convictions then held by Whitefield: (1) God’s faithfulness to preserve the believer,[31] and (2) God’s sovereignty in the outbreak of revival due to his preaching. From the beginning of 1737 Whitefield remarks on many occasions regarding the immediate impact of his preaching, “The whole city seems to be alarmed. Churches are as full on week days, as they use to be on Sundays” “God still works powerfully here. People flock more than ever, and shew the sincerity of their hearts by giving liberally to the poor,” and “All London is alarmed…thousands, I hope, are quickened, strengthened, and confirmed by the word preached.”[32] By late 1736 the phrase “free grace” enters his vocabulary, highlighting the generous and unmerited nature of God’s mercy.[33] Whitefield will later use this phrase to express the liberty of God’s sovereign choice in election to salvation.[34] To conclude, in this middle period (1736-1738) what stands out is Whitefield’s movement from the cocoon of Oxford Methodism into the public square as an evangelist, calling people to conversion through the experience of the new birth. The impact of his preaching and his confidence in God’s promise to preserve his people inclined Whitefield toward the Calvinist position on the doctrines of grace.
Calvinistic Methodist (1739-40)
When Whitefield returned to London in December 1738, he opened his next Journal extract (third) with the following entry:
“The old doctrine about Justification by Faith only, I found much revived, and many letters had been sent concerning it to me, all which I providentially missed; for now I come unprejudiced, and can the more easily see who is right. And who dare assert that we are not justified in the sight of God merely by an act of faith in Jesus Christ, without any regard to works past, present, or to come?”[35]
Conversion now took on a fuller, richer meaning for Whitefield. In both the Journal and in his letters justification by faith alone is now emphasized along with the new birth as comprising the heart of evangelical conversion.[36] To bring out the richness of his new understanding, Whitefield began to preach from the text of 1 Corinthians 1:30, which highlights the four main aspects of salvation in Christ: wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (Whitefield understood these terms to mean awakening, justification, new birth, and perseverance).[37] For Whitefield, this text became what he called the “golden chain” that summarized the main components of the ordo conversio (order of conversion).[38]
The year 1739 proved significant in another way for the development of Whitefield’s doctrine of conversion. By the autumn of that year he came out in full support of Calvinism. This appears in his letters and a primary catalyst for this transition was John Wesley’s open attack on predestination in the sermon Free Grace. In April 1739 Wesley drew a lot that said, “preach and print,” and this led him to preach the sermon more than once in the Bristol area.[39] A couple of months later Whitefield pleaded with Wesley to “keep in your sermon on predestination.”[40] Wesley held off publishing it till Whitefield left for America in late August. During this voyage Whitefield drank deep the writings of Dr. Edwards (of Cambridge), Jonathan Warn, and Thomas Boston, and finally realized the importance of the Calvinist doctrines of grace in regard to salvation and the Christian life.[41] Election, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the bondage of the human will, and final perseverance now took on more prominence in his understanding of conversion and the Christian life. Whitefield found much personal comfort in the assurance that “God loved me freely, he prevented me by his grace; he chose me from eternity, he called me in time, and I am persuaded will keep me till time shall be no more.”[42] Conversion now meant for Whitefield a full assurance of eternal salvation.
When Whitefield became aware in 1740 that Wesley was publicly teaching salvation from “indwelling sin” he told his venerable friend, “To the best of my knowledge at present, no sin has dominion over me, yet I feel the strugglings of indwelling sin day by day.”[43] From his own inner conflicts as a Christian, Whitefield understood that conversion brings salvation from sin’s power (i.e. reign) but not from its indwelling presence.[44] Ian Maddock summarized Whitefield’s mature position on conversion as a deliverance from the power of sin:
“But even though Whitefield preached that God has wrought a genuine change in the lives of those who have been born again and have begun to pursue inward and outward holiness, he was also adamant that the continuing presence of indwelling sin meant that as long as Christians remained in their earthly body, sanctification remains incomplete.”[45]
Conclusion
By 1740 Whitefield’s doctrine of conversion was firmly settled in the Calvinist position. He continued to stress the importance of holy living that he learned as an Oxford Methodist, but his theological development over the previous six years meant that he reworked the particulars of his Oxford Methodist soteriology—including his understanding of conversion—to fit the scheme of his Calvinist theology. Whereas his original view of conversion entailed the new birth as a spiritual breakthrough in the sanctification process leading to final justification and the eternal kingdom, by 1740 conversion was understood within the “golden chain” of election, effectual calling, justification by faith, new birth, and final perseverance. Conversion, in this latter sense, became the God-moment when God’s electing love draws the seeker to receive eternal salvation through faith in Christ alone, securing the believer’s final perseverance and full assurance. As to who gets the credit, Whitefield never tired of proclaiming, “Not unto me, not to me; but to free, rich, distinguishing, sovereign grace, be all the glory!”[46]
A final note should be added about the Evangelical Revival in the late 1730s. The three main parties of the Revival—Calvinistic Methodists, Wesleyan Methodism, and Moravianism—all went through significant developments in their doctrines of conversion from the mid-1730s to the early 1740s. While the three groups taught and proclaimed the necessity of conversion for evangelical salvation, they each gravitated toward their dominant theological traditions to explain and articulate the specifics of their conversion doctrine. Whitefield (and supporters) gravitated toward Puritan Calvinism, the Wesleys toward High Church Anglicanism which was Arminian, and the Moravians toward their Lutheran roots. Hence, the divisions that took place in the early 1740s between the three groups was in many ways due to the disparities between these three theological traditions—which reach down to our own day.
[1] The phrase comes from a chapter title in Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth-Century Revival, 2 vols. (Westchester: Crossway Books, 1970, 1980) I:103.
[2] See Whitefield’s (hereafter: GW) often published first sermon, The Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus, in Order to Salvation (London: C. Riverton, 1737).
[3] GW says his conversion was about seven weeks after ‘passion-week’ 1735 (Journal, 57). Easter that year was on 10 April, so his conversion would have been around 22-29 May.
[4] The full title: A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield: from his Infancy, to the Time of his Entering into Holy Orders.
[5] GW, George Whitefield’s Journals (Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 35 (Hereafter: Journal).
[6] Journal, 46-47.
[7] W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, eds. The Works of John Wesley, Journal & Diary, vols. 18-24 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988-2003), 18:243-44, emphasis his.
[8] Kenneth G.C. Newport and Gareth Lloyd, eds. The Letters of Charles Wesley, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) I:45, 46, 51, 66; Albert C. Outler, ed. The Works of John Wesley, Sermons, vols. 1-4 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984-88) IV:377.
[9] Journal, 47; Wesley and Methodist Studies, vol. 6 (2014), 126. A possible touch of criticism is in this comment since it could be understood to mean that Oxford Methodism was to a certain degree legalistic in nature. It should be remembered that GW was a Calvinist when he made this remark.
[10] Journal, 57-58.
[11] Ibid., 58.
[12] That GW realized this is confirmed by the fact that in 1756 when he re-edited his Journal he removed the above paragraph and wrote a new one that included standard evangelical terminology (Journal, 58 footnote).
[13] George Whitefield, Letters of George Whitefield, 1734-1742 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 6 (Hereafter: Letters).
[14] Ibid., 8-9.
[15] Henry Scougal, The Life of God in the Soul of Man (New York: Cosimo Classics, 2007), 41, 93. These same themes are found in the letters of Charles Wesley, thus showing that GW’s views were conversant with what was happening within Oxford Methodism in the mid-1730s (see fn 8).
[16] A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 25-35. GW also told Charles Kinchin in April 1739 that his ordeal in 1735 was due to his struggle to attain a single intention (Letters, 496; Journal, 256).
[17] Journal, 71, 108, 132; Letters, 18.
[18] Letters, 14, 18, 20, 41, 490.
[19] Letters, 13-14.
[20] Ibid., 17, 39; cf. Journal, 146-47.
[21] Journal, 81. This remark was penned in 1744 and published in 1747.
[22] GW sermon, The Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus, in order to Salvation (London: Riverton, 1737), 3, 17, 21 (Hereafter: New Birth).
[23] Scougal, section one; Matthew Henry, Commentary, John 3:3.
[24] Letters, 18, 19, 21; Journal, 147.
[25] Ibid., 12, 36, 39, 41, 485.
[26] Ibid., 19. 30.
[27] New Birth, 7-8.
[28] Ibid., 13.
[29] Ibid., 17.
[30] Ibid., 11.
[31] An example is GW’s reflective comment, ‘I am a proud, imperious, sinful worm; but God, I hope, in time, will conform me to the image of his dear Son. He has begun…and I trust, he will finish his good work in me’ (Letters, 32; see also GW’s encouragement to believers Letters, 11, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24).
[32] Letters, 24, 29, 30.
[33] Ibid., 23.
[34] Ian J. Maddock, Men of One Book: A Comparison of Two Methodist Preachers, John Wesley and George Whitefield (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 194.
[35] Journal, 193-94.
[36] Journal, 197, 198, 273; Letters 69, 72, 79.
[37] Letters, 47, 62, 73, 87. See GW’s 1739 sermon on the text: ‘Christ, the Believer’s Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption’ in Sermons of George Whitefield (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 219-231 (Hereafter: Sermons).
[38] Sermons, 225. ‘Golden chain’ is an obvious allusion to William Perkins and his description of the order of salvation as links of a chain.
[39] Journal, 572. See JW’s Journal & Diary, 29-30 April 1739.
[40] Letters, 499.
[41] Journal, 335; Letters, 128-29.
[42] Letters, 145.
[43] Ibid.,156.
[44] GW’s Journal contains many confessions of his struggles with ego and other spiritual conflicts (e.g. 331-32).
[45] Maddock, 216.
[46] Letters, 198.
[This article was taken with permission from Mark K. Olson’s website where the original version can be found.]
