J
Jerusha
Guest
Given your personal experience, it might be so. However, remember that they are quite diverse.
- Status
A
andrewstx
Guest
vary to great degree. Compare Lutherans to Southrn Baptists.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Think about it though
They would both hold to Sola Fide, but may or may not have a difference on eternal security.
They would both hold to Sola Scriptura but just have different interpretations.
I would think they would both agree that works have no effect on a persons salvation.
C
ctb95
Guest
True
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, Protestants have a variety of positions on faith and works, and none of the major Protestant traditions teach that a person can be saved who does not (given the opportunity) do good works.
The ablative in sola fide is important. Justification is by faith alone.
The “classic” Protestant view (i.e., the view shared by confessional Lutherans and confessional Reformed) is that good works contribute nothing to our justification–God’s judicial declaration that we are righteous.
Of the two classic Protestant traditions, Lutherans are more nervous about saying that good works are “necessary,” though they agree that saving faith will always express itself in works.
The Reformed historically would say that good works are a necessary consequence and evidence of our faith, but do not, per se, contribute to our salvation. The Reformed, unlike the Lutherans, believe in “perseverance of the saints”–that anyone who has at one time truly believed in Christ is assured of salvation. This works for them because they believe in predestination–that God can assure the salvation of those he has chosen, and that includes assuring that those who believe persevere in good works.
Methodists don’t believe in perseverance of the saints. They believe that once a person has believed in Christ, he/she may still choose to fall away and be lost. Thus, perseverance in good works is optional, not inevitable as in Calvinism, and a person who chooses not to go on doing good works is putting his/her salvation in danger. That’s the most basic sense in which Clinton is right–all Methodists who accept basic Methodist doctrine about salvation believe that the choice to persevere in good works, in cooperation with God’s grace, is necessary for one’s final salvation.
Beyond that it gets complicated, in part because Wesley himself was not a systematic theologian and his views evolved in the course of his life. In his early career after his “heart-warming” at Aldersgate Street, he sounded very Protestant and preached sermons on justification by faith alone. But quite soon he decided that he had been “leaning too much toward Calvinism,” and in 1770 he delivered an address to a conference of Methodist preachers in which he spoke out very clearly about the role of good works in salvation.
As a Reformation scholar, I find the closest 16th-century analogue to Wesley’s soteriology to be the doctrine of “double justification” proposed by “evangelical Catholics” such as Cardinal Contarini (yes, this is one reason why I use his name as my alias) and accepted by at least some Protestants such as Martin Bucer. In this view, initial justification is by faith alone (which is fairly uncontroversial), but good works are also necessary. However, they are never sufficient, so that final justification also requires God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us to cover our deficiencies.
Wesley would, I think, agree with this, if we are talking about God’s “strict justice.”
Edwin
The ablative in sola fide is important. Justification is by faith alone.
The “classic” Protestant view (i.e., the view shared by confessional Lutherans and confessional Reformed) is that good works contribute nothing to our justification–God’s judicial declaration that we are righteous.
Of the two classic Protestant traditions, Lutherans are more nervous about saying that good works are “necessary,” though they agree that saving faith will always express itself in works.
The Reformed historically would say that good works are a necessary consequence and evidence of our faith, but do not, per se, contribute to our salvation. The Reformed, unlike the Lutherans, believe in “perseverance of the saints”–that anyone who has at one time truly believed in Christ is assured of salvation. This works for them because they believe in predestination–that God can assure the salvation of those he has chosen, and that includes assuring that those who believe persevere in good works.
Methodists don’t believe in perseverance of the saints. They believe that once a person has believed in Christ, he/she may still choose to fall away and be lost. Thus, perseverance in good works is optional, not inevitable as in Calvinism, and a person who chooses not to go on doing good works is putting his/her salvation in danger. That’s the most basic sense in which Clinton is right–all Methodists who accept basic Methodist doctrine about salvation believe that the choice to persevere in good works, in cooperation with God’s grace, is necessary for one’s final salvation.
Beyond that it gets complicated, in part because Wesley himself was not a systematic theologian and his views evolved in the course of his life. In his early career after his “heart-warming” at Aldersgate Street, he sounded very Protestant and preached sermons on justification by faith alone. But quite soon he decided that he had been “leaning too much toward Calvinism,” and in 1770 he delivered an address to a conference of Methodist preachers in which he spoke out very clearly about the role of good works in salvation.
As a Reformation scholar, I find the closest 16th-century analogue to Wesley’s soteriology to be the doctrine of “double justification” proposed by “evangelical Catholics” such as Cardinal Contarini (yes, this is one reason why I use his name as my alias) and accepted by at least some Protestants such as Martin Bucer. In this view, initial justification is by faith alone (which is fairly uncontroversial), but good works are also necessary. However, they are never sufficient, so that final justification also requires God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us to cover our deficiencies.
Wesley would, I think, agree with this, if we are talking about God’s “strict justice.”
Edwin
A
ajcstr
Guest
Catholics would agree with this statement (so long as the justification in the protestant sense and initial justification in the Catholic sense are considered as the same).
Hence the Catholic/Lutheran joint declaration on justification.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right–but in the “classic Protestant” view they don’t contribute to final justification either.
That’s precisely the point where Wesleyanism, as I understand it, differs from classic Protestantism and aligns itself with Catholicism.
Edwin
A
ajcstr
Guest
Understood
I have heard this both ways. Maybe its not the same among between the Methodist Churches. Aren’t there similar differences in the Anglican Church?
What you are saying makes sense because Methodist gets its name from “Methods” which would imply works to me.
C
Contarini
Guest
Note that I said on this point, namely the contribution of works to final justification. Whether traditional Wesleyan soteriology (i.e., that found in the sermons of John Wesley and the hymns of Charles) is fundamentally closer to Catholic or to Reformed/Lutheran soteriology is a matter of dispute among Wesleyans. I lean toward the former view, but I understand why many intelligent people lean the other way. It all depends on which of the Wesleys’ very unsystematic writings you prioritize and how you put the various pieces together. And of course one’s own theological leanings play a huge role. A lot of Wesleyan scholars and theologians, following the lead of Albert Outler, may have overemphasized the “Catholic” or “Orthodox” side of the Wesleys’ theology. (You are quite right, by the way, that the same basic “high-church/low-church” distinction exists within Methodism as in Anglicanism, though the “high-church” wing is much weaker and tends mostly to consist of folks who are fairly liberal, whereas there are a lot of very conservative Anglo-Catholics in Anglicanism. And, of course, low-church Anglicans are mostly Calvinists historically.) One of the good things about not being institutionally “Wesleyan” (Methodist or some other historically Wesleyan denomination) is that I have the freedom to say “Wesley may have thought X, and he may have been wrong.” (Though William Abraham, from within institutional Methodism, has called for an end to the project of reconstructing Wesley’s theology as a basis for one’s own theology.) Kenneth Collins of Asbury Theological Seminary has made a career out of combating the Outler interpretation and stressing the more Protestant side of Wesley.
Personally, as someone who grew up more or less in the Wesleyan tradition (my family came from a radical “Holiness” denomination but were totally non-denominational and theologically eclectic by the time I came along, but still with a very high regard for the Wesleys), when I read the documents of Trent I thought, “there’s not a whole lot here to disagree with,” particularly once I understood what “merit” actually means within the Catholic tradition. Not all Wesleyan evangelicals have the same reaction, to be sure, but it’s not uncommon.
The main difference, as I see it, is over the nature of faith, as with all versions of evangelical Protestantism. Protestants believe that true faith–the kind that is a supernatural gift of God–cannot exist in the absence of charity, and thus cannot exist in someone who is not justified before God. (Hence “sola fide.” Catholics misunderstand this to mean that faith existing without love justifies in Protestant theology, but that view is rejected vehemently by all the major Protestant traditions.) Trent explicitly condemns the view that faith is always lost when a person commits a mortal sin. This was, for me, the one really clear point of conflict with Trent. Ironically, I think the Catholic position has stronger Biblical arguments, but the Protestant position is pastorally and experientially more appealing. Given some statements from the last couple of Popes that sound Protestant on this point, I’m fairly confident now that reconciliation can be found via a sharper distinction between “formed faith” and “unformed faith.”
The much bigger Methodist/Catholic differences center on ecclesiology and sacramental theology, I think. At least, those were much greater points of opposition between the Wesleyan heritage as I received it and Catholicism. (My family had completely lost the Wesleys’ sacramental theology.)
I think people put far too much emphasis on the origins of denominational names, which are often quite accidental. “Methodist” comes from a slur applied to Wesley and his friends in their young days, before they became evangelicals. They had something called the “Holy Club” at Oxford, which was a group of serious young men who lived by a strict “rule of life” including fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, frequent reception of the Eucharist, and charitable works such as visiting prisoners. After the Wesleys’ evangelical conversion and the beginning of a revival movement, people put the same label on this broader movement, since the emphasis on a disciplined practice of spirituality carried over. The term does imply recognition from the outside of a continuity between the Wesleys’ early “High Church” stage and their later “evangelical” mission, and I think that’s an accurate perception. So in that sense it does have theological implications. But their view of proper Christian practices owed a great deal to the Puritans as well as to High-Church Anglicanism.
Edwin
P
Peter_J
Guest
As I read the various responses to this question, I am surprised to find that people just take for granted that her statement is accurate wrt Catholics. (Or maybe I just don’t know CAF as well as I though I did.)
P
Peter_J
Guest
This is news to me. What I’ve heard in the past is that in their early days they were put down for using a “new method”, then name calling turned into an established term.
Do you have a source?
A
ajcstr
Guest
Well I heard it in a tape by Allan Hunt (who is a Catholic convert) called “Confessions of a Mega-Church pastor” but I think these links are similar:
christianity.about.com/od/methodistdenomination/a/methodishistory.htm
christianperfection.com/page3.html
A
alwayswill
Guest
??? or they were very methodical in their study, fasting, prayers, and worship.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Could be, I don’t know which is why I am asking.
But wouldn’t the things you listed be considered works?
A
alwayswill
Guest
its not a mystery: it is well documented everywhere:
They would pray at certain specific times: study at certain specific times, fast on certain specific days, etc…
and no, Sola Fide Christians do not consider any of my listed things to be works.
-I am a former Methodist after decades of service and leadership.
M
Michael68
Guest
Why former after so long? Just curious.
J
jane_doe
Guest
That’s on thing I’ve never understood Sola Fide Christians: speaking in general that they DO consider some actions necessary for salvation (faith, repentance, etc). But then they say “we don’t believe works are necessary” by defining works as to not include all actions, but only specific ones.
How is this not a word game? (I’m trying to understand here, and apologize if I seem inadvertently offensive).
M
Michael68
Guest
I agree. The Repentant Thief is often regarded as faith only, yet when examined this man performed several works of faith from the cross. He asked for forgiveness, rebuked the unbeliever. These were works of faith imo
A
alwayswill
Guest
the UMC rejects the authority of Scripture for the doctrines of man:
Change their Book of Discipline and BAM!!!.. same sex unions are allowed
M
Michael68
Guest
I understand. Thanx!!!
- Status