I hold John Wesley in very high regard (I am, after all, Methodist!). The guy was simply amazing on so many levels. The thing I love the most is how many churches were planted under his leadership (it’s estimated that at his death Methodism had around 132,000 members).
When I look at Wesley’s life, I often feel like a failure in comparison —and mostly—surrounding his commitment and discipline for Jesus. It’s no wonder God used him to accomplish HUGE things for the Kingdom of God. The way he fasted, prayed, preached, studied the Bible, served the poor and the prisoner…few can compare.
But what about Wesley’s theology? Once again, I’m a huge fan. I love Wesley’s emphasis on regeneration over justification as the crux of Christian conversion. I also love his emphasis on sanctification and the Christian life being a journey, not simply a momentary transactional status change from guilty to innocent. I love that Wesley believed in victorious Christian living and that Christ’s atonement is enough to free sinners not only from the guilt of sin but the power of sinning.
I also am in full agreement with Wesley’s Arminian convictions. Limited atonement? No. Not biblical whatsoever (I know I’m saying that quite definitively, but it’s simply my view on the matter).
But where do I disagree with Wesley? For one, I don’t agree with Wesley’s eschatology (theology of the end of all things and the ultimate fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes in the creation).
Let me be clear: Wesley was orthodox on the essentials of eschatology (the return of Christ, bodily resurrection, final judgment, and the new heaves and the new earth). It’s the non-essentials (the how and when of Christ’s return) where I believe Wesley was off.
While Wesley’s eschatology was not as systematic as that of some other theologians, it can be characterized as optimistic, postmillennial, and deeply tied to his theology of sanctification. However, despite his many contributions to Christian thought, Wesley’s eschatology faces significant biblical challenges.
1. Wesley’s Postmillennial Eschatology
Wesley’s eschatological vision aligned closely with postmillennialism—the belief that the world would progressively improve through the spread of the Gospel until Christ’s return. He saw human cooperation with divine grace as instrumental in bringing about a form of societal transformation that would ultimately lead to the reign of Christ on earth.
This optimistic view was based on Wesley’s confidence in the power of holiness and sanctification, which he believed could spread throughout the world, reforming societies and nations in preparation for Christ’s return.
2. The Problem with Postmillennialism
While Wesley’s vision for a world transformed by holiness is admirable, the Bible simply and clearly presents a different eschatological picture. Several key problems with postmillennialism challenge Wesley’s perspective:
A. The Bible Predicts Increasing Apostasy, Not a Golden Age
Wesley’s expectation of a progressive triumph of holiness conflicts with multiple biblical passages that predict increased wickedness before Christ’s return.
- 2 Timothy 3:1-5 states, “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good.”
- Matthew 24:10-12 warns that many will fall away, betraying and hating one another, and that wickedness will increase.
These passages indicate that before Christ’s return, the world will not be marked by increasing holiness, but by widespread rebellion and moral decay.
B. Christ’s Kingdom Is Not Established by Human Effort
Wesley’s eschatology placed heavy emphasis on human participation in societal transformation as part of God’s redemptive plan. However, Scripture teaches that Christ’s kingdom is not ushered in by human progress but by God’s direct intervention.
- Daniel 2:44 states, “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.” This implies that God alone establishes his kingdom, not human efforts at reform.
- Revelation 19:11-16 presents Christ’s return as an act of divine intervention where He personally judges the nations and establishes his rule.
Wesley’s eschatology overemphasized human cooperation in kingdom-building, whereas Scripture teaches that Christ’s second coming will be sudden, divine, and not the result of gradual societal progress.
3. The Biblical Alternative: Premillennial and Amillennial Perspectives
Two major eschatological views that more accurately reflect biblical teaching are premillennialism and amillennialism.
- Premillennialism teaches that Christ will return before the establishment of his 1,000-year reign on earth, a reign brought about by his power alone (Revelation 20:1–6). This contradicts Wesley’s idea that human holiness will progressively bring in Christ’s kingdom.
- Amillennialism argues that the millennium is symbolic of Christ’s current reign in heaven and that his return will bring about the final judgment, not a golden age of Christian perfection beforehand (John 18:36, Revelation 20:7-15).
Both perspectives—in my view—better align with the biblical theme of an increasing spiritual battle before Christ’s return, rather than Wesley’s optimistic expectation of a gradual transformation of the world.
While John Wesley’s eschatology reflects his deep commitment to holiness and the transformative power of the Gospel, it does not fully align with biblical prophecy. The Bible teaches that before Christ’s return, apostasy and evil will increase, and that his kingdom will be established by his return, not by human progress. Wesley’s optimistic postmillennialism, while inspiring, ultimately does not hold up against the clear eschatological teachings of Scripture. Instead, a biblical eschatology recognizes that while believers are called to pursue holiness, the ultimate fulfillment of God’s kingdom awaits the return of Christ, when He alone will set all things right.
