User:Flex/Talk TD

Wesley & the Methodists
I'm a little confused by the line in the objections section, "In contrast, the idea that God can be frustrated leaves a believer in total depravity without any hope at all." Some clarification would be helpful.

Wesley affirmed total depravity; he was absolutely convinced of the inherent sinfulness of human beings (though he preferred to talk about "original sin" rather than "total depravity").

(From the Methodist Articles of Religion: "Article VII—Of Original or Birth Sin: Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.")

He viewed humanity's depraved nature, however, somewhat like the Eastern fathers...as a corrupted nature in need of healing by the Great Physician. Thus, with the idea of Christian perfection, humans could be cleansed of total depravity...it need not be "permanent depravity". That's the big difference, in my view, between the Calvinist view and the Methodist view. I'll try and find some sources later. 28 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)


 * Wesleyan Methodism (unlike Arminianism in general) does support a strong doctrine of "total inability" (which is more to the point of the Calvinist doctrine, IMHO), right KHM03? For followers of Wesley and Calvin, overcoming that inability is a matter of divine intervention (whether prevenient or irresistible grace), and thus the doctrines are similar, if not identical, up to that point. But I see that Mkmcconn deleted the citations of Methodism in the positive statement of the doctrine and said in the objections section that "Arminians of Wesley's stripe do not affirm total depravity in its earlier sense; although it must be granted that their difference with it is subtle." Can you comment on the similarity of the Methodist doctrine to the Calvinist one stated here?


 * Also, the last paragraph of the objections section is clearly not NPOV. "However, God is fair, and grants this grace fairly to all persons..." and like sentences needs qualification. I'll work on that after we iron out what the article should say about Methodism and in which section. --Flex June 29, 2005 11:52 (UTC)


 * My understanding of Wesley is that he agreed with Calvin regarding the sinful nature of human beings. "Total depravity" itself as a term is not typically used by Wesley, but utilizing other language, it seems to me that he and Calvin were on the same page.  Where they differed, as you stated, is how God chooses to deal with the sin/depravity of humankind (Wesley - prevenient grace, at least initially; Calvin - irresistible grace).  Again, Wesley differed from Calvin in that he believed that a person's sinful nature could be cleansed as a person was "perfected" or "entirely sanctified".  I think (and could be wrong) that Calvin believed that we held on to the sinful nature until either death or the second coming, and at that point God would cleanse us from the sinful nature.  But regarding the notion that human beings are corrupt, totally depraved, and completely sinful, Wesley and Calvin were in agreement.  Officially, United Methodism has no problem with total depravity as defined on this page...it agrees with our Articles and other doctrinal standards.


 * Now, having said all that, there have been Wesleyan theologians through the years who have defined total depravity & the sinful nature in other ways, claiming that we are not totally depraved, but mostly depraved. That's not faithful to Wesley, though...nor is it faithful to our official doctrine.  It also takes some of the oomph out of the miraculous prevenience of God's grace.  Let me say it clearly: regarding total depravity, Wesley was a Calvinist.  KHM03 29 June 2005 12:19 (UTC)


 * To say that Wesley was a Calvinist on this issue is misleading, however. He expressed the Arminian position in a way that some Calvinists approved, true - but, not the same thing.  Calvinism was the orthodoxy of his day.  Even in rejecting the Calvinist system - as eventually became clear even in his public writings - he faithfully meets Calvinism on its own terms.  This is usually interpreted as a matter of skillful rhetoric - not a departure from Arminianism, but an example of how to swing an argument in Arminianism's direction. Mkmcconn (Talk)  \


 * Because doctrine is a system, as the article presently says total depravity in the Wesleyan frame is not of the same family as the Calvinist and Lutherans. But, as it says, this is not to say that Wesleyans do not believe in the depravity of man - from Wesley's writings and hymns (many of which are used in Reformed churches) its evident that he thinks that man is at least as depraved as the Calvinist and Lutheran says he is. Isn't the very fact that his practical system is derisively called "Methodism" a clue that people perceived a difference underlying his views of depravity.  Mkmcconn (Talk)


 * Did I delete a citation? Perhaps it was in error, or the over-write bug in the software? "God is fair" is POV - but the point of the passage is to explain clearly the thinking of a Wesleyan Arminian.  If you think that the passage should be made clearer (and can do that without filling it with anxious disclaimers all through, which make for very bumpy reading), I understand and support that goal. Mkmcconn (Talk)  29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)


 * I'll do what I can once we settle what it should say, but disclaimers are a necessary evil in a collaborative project such as this. --Flex June 29, 2005 14:44 (UTC)


 * KHM03, which part [is confusing]? The "God can be frustrated" part, or the "no hope at all" part. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)


 * Re "permanent depravity": You have it, without additional clarification, KHM03. "Permanent depravity" overstates the issue somewhat; but it gets at the heart of the matter.  Mkmcconn (Talk)