I've discovered over the years the best way to teach Wesley's "Scripture Way of Salvation" (God's sacred initiative in shaping our lives into fullness through prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace) is to start with TULIP. Then I contrast these ideas with the Arminian point of view (free will vs. predestination), and the sheet provides a way to offer Wesley's nuanced approach.
Historically, it makes sense because Wesley's teaching (which is a recovery of eastern Christian spirituality, expressed in more exacting Protestant language) came out of his struggle against Calvinism historically. He was brilliant in what he taught, in my humble opinion!
I say his approach was nuanced because his teachings aren't direct opposite of these teachings, but definitely contrast with them. He taught direct opposites when it comes to the middle three, but his response was nuanced when it came to the first and the last. He believed we are born tainted from our original luster because of original sin, but that our "essential nature" is that we are born in the image of God, not that we are a sinner. Christianity restores us to that original nature, rather than changing us from our original "bad" nature into something else.
Likewise, his response to the Calvinist "once saved always saved" mantra is more nuanced than it is often characterized to be. It should not lead directly to anxiety about whether we are saved or not (the Calvinist critique of Wesley). We don't need to be saved again and again because we fall, heavens no. He also taught ASSURANCE of our salvation, but maintained that God always grants us free will to turn toward God, or away from God. God never forces love. Of course, Wesley's language of "salvation" is rooted in New Testament Greek, and so does not refer simply to whether we have a ticket to heaven or not at the moment of death. It refers to whether we are on the journey of being made whole in Christ. This is part of the mischaracterization of what he means when he indicates we can "fall from grace."
