Calvin, Luther & Wesley

[BrotherBob]

In this thread I would like to discuss the differences and similarities between these three theologians. Wesley himself claimed his position was within a "hair's breath" of Calvinism. So to start off I would like to examine one of the similarities.

Saving faith a gift of divine grace

With the reformed tradition of Luther and Calvin, Wesley believed that human beings are saved by grace through faith. However, "faith" from the perspective of all three men is itself a creation of divine grace. Each forcefully content that "saving faith" is not achieved by trying to believe or even choosing to believe, but is a gift of God. As a result of original sin, (another similarity) human beings cannot work up faith on their own. The best people can do in their sinful state is exercise unbelief, they cannot exercise faith. To "believe" is a gift given to human beings by God
-- on this Luther, Calvin and Wesley agree.
I will post others later.

 

[MrPolo]

Luther explicitly taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Calvin argued against the idea that mentions of Jesus' "brothers" in Scripture disproved her Perpetual Virginity. He considered the argument ridiculous.

 

[Mr Dave]

Luther explicitly taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Wesley said "I believe that [Jesus]... born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (A Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)

I want to be subscribed to this though to discuss all this stuff. I was only saying yesterday that no-one ever takes a shot at Wesleyanism in GT, I spoke too soon

 

[Eucharisted]

There should be a movie like this

 

[Mr Dave]

Calvin and Luther were both Sola Scriptura people (I believe?) whereas Wesley wasn't but was more of a Prima Scriptura person. 2 out of 3 ain't bad

 

[Rick Otto]

In this thread I would like to discuss the differences and similarities between these three theologians. Wesley himself claimed his position was within a "hair's breath" of Calvinism. So to start off I would like to examine one of the similarities.

Saving faith a gift of divine grace

With the reformed tradition of Luther and Calvin, Wesley believed that human beings are saved by grace through faith. However, "faith" from the perspective of all three men is itself a creation of divine grace. Each forcefully content that "saving faith" is not achieved by trying to believe or even choosing to believe, but is a gift of God. As a result of original sin, (another similarity) human beings cannot work up faith on their own. The best people can do in their sinful state is exercise unbelief, they cannot exercise faith. To "believe" is a gift given to human beings by God
-- on this Luther, Calvin and Wesley agree.
I will post others later.

I believe that myself, but I hear John Wesley was arminian, so I don't get how a free will decision isn't the effectual saving act in Wesley's soteriology, grace having only provided the option of choosing.

 

[BrotherBob]

I believe that myself, but I hear John Wesley was arminian, so I don't get how a free will decision isn't the effectual saving act in Wesley's soteriology, grace having only provided the option of choosing.

Wesley has considerable differences from contemporary Wesleyans.

Contemporary Wesleyan-Arminian evangelicalism either implies or explicitly teaches that faith is an inherent power within human beings as a result of prevenient grace given to all humanity. As such, human beings have the ability in any given moment to exercise their will to believe the Gospel and be saved. From this perspective, people at any time may hear the Gospel, weight the strengths and weaknesses of the argument offered and choose to follow Christ. Thus, faith and a personal response to the Gospel, is primarily something a person does. They believe. They decide. They receive. To contemporary Wesleyans have this power to decide as a result of prevenient grace---a blanket of grace given to all humans everywhere enabling them to move toward God and exercise faith in any given moment.

Wesley disagrees. This contemporary understanding is a misappropriation of Wesley's teaching on prevenient grace. To Wesley prevenient grace brings to power to respond to grace, not the power to believe. Wesley would say that as a result of prevenient grace human beings are able to cooperate with further offers of grace by God---not that they had the power to believe when they heard the Gospel. For Wesley prevenient grace it itself does not restore to people the ability to exercise faith, much less express repentance---these are the works of God not men and women. Prevenient grace enables a person to cooperate with God's grace made available through the means of grace that seeks to convict a person of sin, convince a person of the need for Christ, and create saving faith. Thus, to Wesley all prevenient grace enable a person to do is to choose to cooperate with these further works of grace or not. Grace from this perspective is the work of the Holy Spirit in us. As the Gospel is being shared, grace is at work inside people, a work that is not humanly generated but of God and it is drawing people, convincing people of the truth that Christ died for them, and compelling them to give their lives to Christ. As such, faith is not a human act so much as a result of cooperating with the "grace" of God at work in people. all people have done in the moment of conversion is cooperate with what is being wrought in them. To Wesley the choice is not to believe or not, it is to resist or submit to God's grace. Unless the Spirit is working, true saving faith is not possible. As such, only in moments when the Holy Spirit is enabling saving faith in an individual can a person be converted. This is why Wesley can state, "any man may come (to be saved), but not whenever he wants."

What do you think?

 

[Mr Dave]

Do you have any links for your info, I'm scavaging through several books to find things which either agree or dispute what you're saying about his Wesleyness, but if you could state your sources that would be a great help

 

[Mr Dave]

I believe that myself, but I hear John Wesley was arminian,

Wesley was indeed of the Arminian school of thought that existed in the Church of England (being one of the reasons, amongst others, that the Methodist societies had to register as dissenting chapels in English Law, that the Arminian view didn't go completely with the 39 articles of Religion of the CofE).

so I don't get how a free will decision isn't the effectual saving act in Wesley's soteriology, grace having only provided the option of choosing.

John Wesley, Sermon 1: Salvation by faith, first published 1746

"III.3
...
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. Of yourselves cometh neither your faith nor your salvation: 'it is the gift of God'; the free, undeserved gift; the faith through which ye are saved, as well as the salvation which He of His own good pleasure, His mere favour, annexes thereto. That ye believe, is one instance of His grace; that believing ye are saved, another. 'Not of works, lest any man should boast.' "


Grace does both, the first instance commonly called, prevenient grace/pre-existing grace, that allows one to believe, one (through the grace that permits this that is offered to all) may turn to God in faith, and it is by God's grace (another instance of God's grace, not limited to only one act upon a person) that executes the salvation of the individual. Grace does more than only provide the option of choosing.

 

[BrotherBob]

Do you have any links for your info, I'm scavaging through several books to find things which either agree or dispute what you're saying about his Wesleyness, but if you could state your sources that would be a great help

My sources:

Chris Bounds, Assistant Professor in Theology at Indiana Wesleyan University where he teaches theology courses.

Keith Drury, Associate Professor of Religion at Indiana Wesleyan University where he teaches practical ministry.

Although I was first baptized Methodist I am now a Calvinist and thought I would go to a knowledgeable source. If this is not a reliable source please let me know.

 

[Anoetos]

One oversimplistic way to think about it is to understand that while many modern Arminians ("Wesleyans" among them) are, effectively, semi-pelagian, Wesley himself (as well as Arminius himself and those few real Arminians still around [Tozer is a late example]) are, effectively, semi-augustinian.

The differences lie less in whom they admire and resemble as in whose perspective they represent a modification of.

(pardon the dangling participle)

 

[Mr Dave]

My sources:

Chris Bounds, Assistant Professor in Theology at Indiana Wesleyan University where he teaches theology courses.

Keith Drury, Associate Professor of Religion at Indiana Wesleyan University where he teaches practical ministry.

Although I was first baptized Methodist I am now a Calvinist and thought I would go to a knowledgeable source. If this is not a reliable source please let me know.

Many thanks
I must admit, I haven't come across them, but they seem to 'pass the test'

 

[Anoetos]

Would that more non-Calvinist Protestants followed thew example and thought of Wesley more closely.

 

[Mr Dave]

One oversimplistic way to think about it is to understand that while many modern Arminians ("Wesleyans" among them) are, effectively, semi-pelagian,

Really?! Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's as true as saying that Calvinism is antinomian, it's understandable how people arrive at the conclusion, but the conclusion is wrong.

 

[Anoetos]

Really?! Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's as true as saying that Calvinism is antinomian, it's understandable how people arrive at the conclusion, but the conclusion is wrong.

Sir,

I distinguish between True Arminians, like yourself presumably, who are aware and solidly grounded theologically and those who are not but whose soteriology is, effectively, semi-pelagian.

I understand your desire to distance yourself from them and am more than willing to apologize for our tendency to lump you all together under the name "Arminian", but we have no other category at the moment which effectively distinguishes them from us as well.

 

[Mr Dave]

Sir,

I distinguish and differentiate between True Arminians, like yourself presumably, who are aware and solidly grounded theologically and those who are not but whose soteriology is, effectively, semi-pelagian.

I understand your desire to distance yourself from them and am more than willing to apologize for our tendency to lump you all together under the name "Arminian", but we have no other category at the moment which effectively distinguishes them from us as well.

My most humble apologies for misconstruing your comment. Thank you for the array of compliments in this post

 

[Anoetos]

Yes, I am always under suspicion from my Calvinist brethren for being too soft on you guys.



But the truth is, I love John and Charles Wesley and have benefited greatly from the ministries of a number of Godly Arminian preachers and teachers (I mentioned Tozer a moment ago, he is a giant among them) and I am not going to pillory them or you for the sake of party pride.

 

[BrotherBob]

John Wesley did not believe people have an inherent power as the result of prevenient grace to exercise saving faith at any given moment, to decide when and where they will commit their lives to Christ, as is implied often in contemporary Wesleyan circles. Likewise, John Wesley was not a semi-Pelegian. (someone who believes human beings retain vestiges of the mortal images of God and thus are only partially destitute spiritually)