The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher as John Wesley's Vindicator and Designated Successor (Volume 15) (Pietist and Wesleyan Studies, 15)

It is currently popular in Wesleyan circles to radically divorce the theological system of John Wesley from that of John Fletcher, making the latter responsible for certain supposed later developments perceived to be outside of Wesley's own corpus. The primary consideration in this light is John Fletcher's identification of entire sanctification with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The most recent close scholarly work on John Fletcher done with some close comparison to Wesley on this subject is the work, "True Christianity: The Doctrine of Dispensations in the Thought of John William Fletcher (1729-1785)” (pub. 2014) by J. Russel Frazier. Most do not realize that after all these years the only direct evidence possibly even linking Fletcher's supposed "late discovery" (Wesley's words) with the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a non-published, uncirculated letter in fragment form with cryptic shorthand from Wesley! Yet scholarship continues to move forward with this misdirection. This in spite of the fact that the associated matter of the Heitzenrater/Maddox position on Wesley's Aldersgate experience has been challenged by the works of Dr. Kenneth Collins for years, crediting the young Wesley with earlier clarity of his own experience and doctrine. Similarly, Dr. Timothy Smith has provided an alternative dating system for Wesley's sermons and works than Albert Outler's and specific evidences demonstrating a much earlier mature articulation of entire sanctification within his ministry (earlier than 1740). This evidence is irreconcilable with the Heitzenrater position that Wesley conflated entire sanctification with justification shortly after Aldersgate, a position that supposedly led him to further confusion lasting into his mid career. Dr. Smith also wrote many convincing articles for the Wesleyan Theological Journal that were debated by Dr. Kenneth Grider in which Smith demonstrated the Wesleys clear association of entire sanctification with the language of Pentecost. Though these works frame the classic debate the conversation is being renewed. With Frazier's work now adding Fletcher to the discussion by suggesting that even he had never made it his uniform interpretation, it would seem scholars are settling more and more on this weak conclusion that stands in the face of the bulk of evidence. Frazier's main thesis (or one of his main theses) is that John Fletcher never equated entire sanctification with the baptism of the Holy Spirit in fact (pp. 167, 168, 201, 203, 210 et. Al). Rather, he supposedly only linked the two teleologically or as the end-goal of an indeterminate process of growth in grace. In my own works, I have demonstrated from Wesley's primary sources an early clarity on the doctrine of entire sanctification. I have also shown that Wesley never conflated the two doctrines of justification and entire sanctification. With his growing clarity on the matter of assurance came a simultaneous growth regarding personal clarity on the associated matters of whether the disciples were converted prior to Pentecost and whether both Old and New Testament experiences of the works of grace were attainable under different dispensations. I found that Wesley's supposed broader use of the phrase in his New Testament Notes (1754) and his reservations about the associated matters mentioned above in the Plain Account (1725-1776) virtually vanished after the 1770 defenses of John Fletcher. My own work had brought me to the year 1770 for the emergence of a major change within Wesley's theology. In defense of his own doctrine he would directly associate his own theology with Fletcher's. He designated Fletcher as his desired successor in leading Methodism! The later Wesley wrote his own sermon and sourced Fletcher's dispensations for his conclusions. Wesley even re-articulated his classic definition of justifying faith after reading Fletcher's stinging criticisms of it and in later sermon's demonstrated a broader concept of justification similar to Fletcher's. Interestingly, I also found when looking at the chronology of the personal testimonies of both Wesley and Fletcher regarding their theological development that both men built on each other's works all throughout their careers. First Wesley laid the groundwork and then Fletcher built on that base his own conclusions which privately Wesley also had been leaning towards since Aldersgate. Wesley finally came over completely to Fletcher's major positions in his most mature years. Even of more moment is the fact that after 1770 Wesley's and Fletcher's broader uses of the phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and similar terminology dropped off other than singly referencing entire sanctification! So I think this review is unique in conjoining the theological systems of the later Wesley and Fletcher to discuss Wesley's theology. Wood has demonstrated a direct link between the American Holiness Movement and John Wesley in this their primary articulation of the doctrine. It calls into question the alternative conclusion dating back Dr. Daniel Steele that John Wesley never used the phrase; something that has now developed into further similarly errant off shoot studies suggesting that Wesley felt lifelong that all Christians were baptized by the Holy Spirit. Frazier and Maddox have worked together in forming their conclusions on this matter. There needs to be further work by conservative Wesley scholars, one that articulates a position more in line with their other evidenced conclusions about Wesley's theology. There are mainly three lines of mostly unstudied support material: 1) Wesley/Fletcher’s Pentecost-Millennial Vision as a (Pre-Trib) Pre-Millennialist, 2) Why Timothy Smith’s (more developed younger Wesley) chronology and studies have been almost entirely ignored in modern Wesleyanism, (if he’s correct it was first Wesley’s theology) and 3) a more consistent traditional position on Wesley—finding common ground between the conservative theologians on Wesley. I only (in recentbmonths) discovered the works of Laurence Wood, found he had worked at Asbury, and that he had already written much of my intended proposed study in his, “The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism”. That he used the same arguments and evidences I proposed, and had in my published books, though these were totally independent studies. Needless to say I was thrilled! Wood noted in his article, "John Fletcher‘s influence on John Wesley‘s theology" that even Outler actually first sequenced "the late Wesley" starting with 1770. I agree with Wood's main thesis. I disagree with his early conflation position of justification with entire sanctification. I agree with his supporting points about Fletcher bringing Wesley consistency, his early to late Wesleys teaching entire sanctification as the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that for Wesley "acceptance" equaled justification, and as designated successor Fletcher's position became Wesley's on Spirit-baptism. I would broaden the scope and say Fletcher's theology--not just his interpretation of Wesley's--became John Wesley’s. I disagree with Wood's eschatological reading of Wesley and Fletcher as Postmillennial, though he admits both Wesleys early on and early Fletcher were Premillennial (as had recent scholarship consensus). Tyerman, West, and early American Methodism (for the first 50 years) held that John and Charles were lifelong Premillennialists and Woods misses Fletcher's Premillenialism in his Checks. Even Bengle was considered the father of Premillennialism and not post (Olson, Maddox, etc., probably for supporting a literal earthly millennium). However, I agree with Wood’s stress in both their works on a literal Millennium and a great end-times Pentecost revival just prior to Christ return. Quoting Wood: ”I do not believe the whole Wesley will be recovered until Wesley scholars consider the influence that Fletcher had upon Wesley’s thinking and upon early Methodism in general.” I have found where Fletcher even wrote Wesley, published in the fourth Check, briefly outlining his maternal uncle’s eschatology which is premillennial and even pretribulational! This would be their final position on eschatology! In pursuit of tightening up Wood’s position, I began a supplemental study. I have listed the majority of the entire uses of John Wesley, Fletcher, and Charles and early Methodism’s of the Pentecostal terms for entire sanctification beginning in 1738 with early, mid, late Wesley, Fletcher’s/(Wesley’s) usages focusing on the 1770’s debate with the Calvinists when their theologies unified, and to the end of Wesley’s life (as provided by my studies, Wood, and Frazier). I already found that going through 3 out of the 4 primary works of Fletcher’s, a time span 1770-1774, they used a SINGULAR, uniform use—the baptism with the Holy Spirit is equated only with entire sanctification (71 separate usages with different contexts). It was only in the final Check, an anthology of Fletcher’s earlier pre-1770 works, that evidence could be drawn for references to regeneration. They are so few. Most can be dismissed as drawn from earlier works such as pulled from his “Sermon on the New Birth” translated from French (a sign, Wood contends, for an early writing), his undated sermon outlines, or “Six Letters on the Spiritual Manifestations of the Son of God” (Frazier dates 1767). This all suggests that there was only one interpretation settled on by Wesley and Fletcher for the public eye of all of Methodism—the baptism with the Holy Spirit is entire sanctification. Most of Frazier’s evidences for indeterminate uses relating to regeneration fall between 1746-1767 when M. Robert Fraser, one of his main sources, even determined they discontinued. There are 130 I’ve documented so far, of these 81 appear in his main works, and only 11 relate to regeneration or are general usages and all relate to his early ministry prior to his mature theology in the primary works and are therefore inconsequential. It matters little if they had indeterminate usages outside his primary works, this was their agreed upon body of representative theology.

Dr. Wood has done an excellent job in narrating the indelible influence of the Reverend John Fletcher upon the "Pentecostal Dispensation" of God, as it was realized and recapitulated in the life of early Methodism! It seems that the annals of church history have little to remember or say concerning this man of towering grace and influence. Although, this legacy of anonymity would have met with Mr. Fletcher's humility in Christ, I praise God for Dr. Wood's keenness and historical acumen in showing the theological and historical affinity with (the easily neglected) reality of early Methodism, and its indelible influence upon subsequent traditions, that would eventually arise out of the people called Methodists!One of the better theological works I've read in a while!

This book is a very detailed historical analysis of the formulation of Methodist doctrine particularly as it relates to its Pentecostal aspects. Therefore the book constitutes a vital study of the doctrinal assumptions that were held by the Wesleyan-half of the early Pentecostals and which influenced early Pentecostalism. While the book is somewhat redundant in its accolade's of John Fletcher, I nonetheless found it extremely helpful to my own research.

good book

Because we are having 3 months renewal in our church and studying and teaching about John Wesley in the whole church. I teach adults and this book Is excellent.

My husband purchased this and said this is one of the worst theologies of John Wesley he had ever read. That is his opinion so try it for yourself.

There's a good chance you've never heard of John Fletcher, and Larry Wood is trying to rectify that lack. John Fletcher was the saint of the early Methodist movement--a deeply pious Christian mystic who had a rich theology of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John Wesley designated Fletcher as his successor, but Fletcher died six years before Wesley did. Still, for over a century after his death, Fletcher's writings were Methodist theological and devotional standards. The title says it all: This book probes the meaning of the motif of Pentecost in early Methodism. Wood explores the role of John Fletcher as the systematizer of John Wesley's theological vision, and in the process challenges the reigning orthodoxy in Wesley studies. Twentieth century Wesley scholars have generally distanced Wesley from Fletcher, claiming that Fletcher's views of entire sanctification as the "baptism of the Spirit" were a later malignant mutation. But, in thorough detail, Wood shows that Wesley entirely endorsed Fletcher's understanding and was himself strongly influenced by it; moreover, the early Methodist movement as a whole was saturated with Fletcher's ideas, out of which eventually grew the Holiness movement in the nineteenth century and the Pentecostal movement in the twentieth. As erudite as all of this might sound, this book is actually a good read! Wood's prose moves rapidly, and although his scholarship is thorough, it doesn't often get bogged down in minutia. The book's aims are indeed scholarly, but it has a real devotional quality to it. It truly melds "head" and "heart." The book deserves a wider readership than its lengthy title (and price) might suggest, and it should spur ecumenical dialogue between not only the Pentecostal and Methodist families, but also Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox.