Wesley's Theology

[ITS]

What are some possible negative effects of Wesley's theology?

[Bernadette]

What are some possible negative aspects of Wesley's theology?

1. Wesley's doctrine of salvation denies constitutional sin, sin is not inherent, it is oppression. The locus of difficulty is with man but not in man, it is not what man is, it is with what man does. Therefore, he has a great hope of the victory that one has in one's life. He stresses the active aspects of sanctification not the passive aspects (what Christ has done for us). He stresses what we are to do. He denies constitutional depravity in the Christian.

2. Wesley denies the positional aspects of justification and sanctification. He sees the active voice of Scripture more than the passive voice of Scripture. Sanctification is not the result of justification. Thus, sanctification is not necessitated by justification, it is optional.

3. Wesley denies the unity between justifcation and sanctification God desires that Saints become sanctified, but He does not cause it, it is our duty to become sanctified.

[mrynsburger]

What are some possible negative effects of Wesley's theology?

Wesley defined sin as ?voluntary transgressions??sins of omission were not sin. He did not call involuntary transgressions ?sins?. Since these ideas of sin seem incomplete--ignoring the harm done by sins of omission and ?involuntary? transgression?there may be the negative effect that some Christians show little care for sins or omissions or for the harmful consequences of ?involuntary? sins.

According to Wesley, it was possible to lose one?s salvation. Some Christians believe this is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that salvation is by grace (through faith) alone. If one must do something to ?keep? one?s salvation, there may be the negative effect of producing a mentality of a works-based salvation, where the Christian misunderstands God?s grace and lives under stress of trying to meet God?s standards to ?stay saved?.

Wesley stressed the active aspects of sanctification, not the passive aspects of it?he stressed what Christians are to do rather than emphasizing what Christ has done for us. Some feel that this emphasis places too much weight on the Christian?s duty rather than on God?s sovereignty in sanctification. It might have the negative effect that a Christian feels defeated and discouraged, thinking that sanctification depends on perfect performance.

[mrynsburger]

What are some possible negative aspects of Wesley's theology?

1. Wesley's doctrine of salvation denies constitutional sin, sin is not inherent, it is oppression. The locus of difficulty is with man but not in man, it is not what man is, it is with what man does. Therefore, he has a great hope of the victory that one has in one's life. He stresses the active aspects of sanctification not the passive aspects (what Christ has done for us). He stresses what we are to do. He denies constitutional depravity in the Christian.

2. Wesley denies the positional aspects of justification and sanctification. He sees the active voice of Scripture more than the passive voice of Scripture. Sanctification is not the result of justification. Thus, sanctification is not necessitated by justification, it is optional.

3. Wesley denies the unity between justifcation and sanctification God desires that Saints become sanctified, but He does not cause it, it is our duty to become sanctified.

(Note: this question has changed slightly since Bernadette posted; the current word ?effects? was previously the word ?aspects?.)

Bernadette has mentioned three ideas which she considers potentially negative in Wesley?s theology; they are similar to the ideas I mentioned in my initial posting. But I will offer additional comments in response to the third idea she chose (that Wesley denies the unity between justification and sanctification).

I mentioned in my response to the ?victorious life? question that I believe sanctification involves both my obedience and my yielding control to God. But along with Bernadette, I disagree with Wesley that sanctification also includes an aspect beyond my ?yielding control? and my obedience. I believe that God also sovereignly acts to sanctify me, to a certain extent. I can see changes in areas of my life since I have become a Christian which I never consciously ?yielded to God? or tried to ?work on?. God has sovereignly caused some of these changes. If the Christian does not know that God is sovereignly at work, he or she might despair at times of feeling that personal efforts at sanctification are failing.

[spiritword]

What are some possible negative effects of Wesley's theology?

His theology denies constitutional depravity of mankind after one receives initial grace. This theology believes that after one is enlightened by prevenient grace, sin is what a man does and not what a man is. It is true that sin is what a man does, but the Scriptures seem to say that this is so because of who a man is, even after salvation (Rom 7). The difference is that after one is regenerated, he now has power from Christ through the Spirit to neutralize the effects of original sin so that he can potential be free from committing sins (Rom 7:25-8:1-39). Nevertheless, constitutional depravity will be with a believer until he passes from the earthly life. Therefore, Wesley’s definition of sin as “voluntary sin” is incomplete. Involuntary sins and sins of omission are still sins (Rom 7). Furthermore, Wesley emphasizes believers’ own responsibility in sanctification rather then what Christ has done for believers. Although he believes that man cannot attain perfection by his own merit, his emphasis on the responsibilities might cause some to focus on themselves as the source of transformation. Wesley sees a distinction between justification and sanctification. It is true enough that sanctification is progressive and not exactly the same as justification. However, the potential for entire sanctification is there for one who is justified, and he or she will have appropriated a measure of sanctification the moment when s/he is regenerated; thus, justification and sanctification are related in this sense.

[spiritword]

Wesley defined sin as ?voluntary transgressions??sins of omission were not sin. He did not call involuntary transgressions ?sins?. Since these ideas of sin seem incomplete--ignoring the harm done by sins of omission and ?involuntary? transgression?there may be the negative effect that some Christians show little care for sins or omissions or for the harmful consequences of ?involuntary? sins.

According to Wesley, it was possible to lose one?s salvation. Some Christians believe this is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that salvation is by grace (through faith) alone. If one must do something to ?keep? one?s salvation, there may be the negative effect of producing a mentality of a works-based salvation, where the Christian misunderstands God?s grace and lives under stress of trying to meet God?s standards to ?stay saved?.

Wesley stressed the active aspects of sanctification, not the passive aspects of it?he stressed what Christians are to do rather than emphasizing what Christ has done for us. Some feel that this emphasis places too much weight on the Christian?s duty rather than on God?s sovereignty in sanctification. It might have the negative effect that a Christian feels defeated and discouraged, thinking that sanctification depends on perfect performance.

I agree with mrynsburger that Wesley’s exclusion of involuntary sins and sins of omission are not scripturally supported. I also agree with mrynsburger that Wesley might have sometimes overly stressed the individual’s works in sanctification. However, since Wesley lived in a post-Reformation era, the saved-by-grace-alone theology might have been pulled to the extreme of a hyper-grace theology for many people as an excuse for their own responsibility. These believers, although saved, do not truly repent of their carnality and hence lack changes in external behaviors and mentality. By focusing on the lack of good evidences of a good Christian character, Wesley is not wrong in this respect. In any event, my own answer to the original question has stated that I also believe those coming to Wesley’s teachings need to be cautious not to fall into the mentality of a work-based sanctification, and I believe this is not what Wesley had meant in the first place. Concerning the issue of eternal security, Wesleyan Arminianism does not teach that salvation is earned by works. Wesley emphasized that works are an important evidence of the inward repentant heart, but he affirmed that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.