Thanks. I have seen unfortunate flame wars between Catholics on the existence of this quote and whether or not it should be used. I've certainly become more cautious by at least saying "allegedly" when referencing ML and this quote.
I remember when I first heard about this saying my first thought was, "How could anyone think God doesn't love us enough to clean up the mess for real?"
That's always been my thought too. Jesus' life and death on the cross proved that He's not one for half measures. That's why I take His words literally and believe in His real presense in the Eucharist.
That's not the point of Luther's teaching (whether or not he ever used this analogy--it looks as if he didn't, though he did compare human nature to a dunghill, as I believe Dave has shown). Of course Luther thought that real transformation took place. But he thought that this was always imperfect and so could not in any sense be the basis for our standing before God.
It's completely irrelevant and unfair to accuse Luther of not believing in sanctification. Practically speaking, what he expected from Christians was not that different from what the Catholic Church expected (I'm not saying that there were no differences). The difference lay in how you deal with falling short. And even there the difference was not as great as you might think. Repent, confess your sins, receive the Eucharist--both sides agreed that this was what should be done and in this order.
The problem is Luther created a separation between sanctification & justification that nobody has ever taught before. Even Dr. Rosenblat admitted as much in his debate long ago with Karl Keating.
Watching that debate I got the definite impression from Dr. Rosenblat that for Lutherans the "good" news was God is going to look at Christ's rightousness which covers you & not see your filthy sinfulness.
Well that is "O.K." news not good news. Good News is God will infuse Christ's rightousness into my soul not just cover it.
After all if a car mechanic gives me a pass on my Car inspection that's OK. But if he actually fixes the problem for free & then passes my car inspection that is simply great.
I think it also weighs into the question of Purgatory, i.e. does God or does He not finish the job? Purgatory may sound like a curse, but I'd rather have all the cancerous remains of sin removed by the Good Surgeon Himself than be left permanently deformed. I don't think God can do this painlessly and have it fully take without compromissing the integrity of our free wills.
Heh. In an article I wrote a while back on my own blog (never having actually heard the snow-covered dunghill "quote") I make a similar point, John--namely, that Protestants by this view are actually more in need of the doctrine of purgatory than we Catholics are.
The post is here: Reflections on Snow if anyone's interested.
I must confess that I have never heard of the "snow-covered dunghill" analogy used by Martin Luther, but given his obsession with bodily functions in some of his other writings, I wouldn't doubt that he used it. However, Luther's analogy to prove his version of justification is undermined by what is found in the parable of the sower in Matt. 13: 3-8 and Christ's explanation in Matt. 13:18-23 given the fact that dung actually makes a field fertile and the ground "good" for sowing.
Paul, I think those verses cover a different aspect of salvation than the Gospel verses you provided. The question here is not whether Luther believed in justification, but the way in which that grace operates.
The above post was greatly revised, with a lot of new material (and removal of other stuff), late Tuesday night.
There is a link posted in the thread just below this one that needs to be addressed by Roman Catholic lay apologists...
Dear Inquisitor: Thank you for your comment. I will try to read all of this (and links) again to try to understand all of this. I am not an apologist nor do I play one on TV.
It was my understanding that the difference between Luther's justification is that it is merely imputed; meaning that it is still there but ignored by God for all time. My understanding of the Catholic position is that justification is not merely imputed to us, but actually is transforming us at the same time. (I know that Luther's idea of sanctification is the second part of his theology and works in much the same way to make us better. It was my thought that God's grace is working on us even when we are not ready to accept it. Our sins and immorality and the resulting guilt weigh on us and there is a part of us that is always looking and yearning for God even before grace is given.
The parable of the sower discusses the different states of man's willingness to accept that grace and let the faith grow. My problem with the dunghill analogy is that snow and other biological processes are working on transforming the dunghill into something else. The smell is not merely covered up, but the processes at work eventually eliminate the smell.
To further my point, it is the work of others, such as you and other apologists, scholars, theologians, ministers, priests, and the laity (good works if you will) which will take that dunghill and use to it make the ground more fertile for the seeds of faith to grow. God's grace works from within, but the work of others helps, too. In short, the dunghill is not a dunghill because someone says it is not or because the snow covers up the smell (imputed), it is because of God, his grace, and the works of the farmers and the fieldhands (fellow Christians)that cause it to be transformed into something else. If this sounds silly or if it is off point, I am sorry.
What the heck's an "ogy"?
Paul, thanks for the clarification. Your analysis of both sides of the equation is fairly accurate. Although, I must confess that Dave should take all the credit. It is after all, his website. Without him, none of his would be here.
As for the justification question, I don't want to give a full answer, but I can say that the problem with the analogy is that it doesn't really figure into those quotes. His point-(if Luther supposedly said what he did)-was that grace has no effect upon the soul- that it is "covered up", so to speak, as opposed to be "washed away". This is essentially how I view it.
Anyway, I have to get back to work. See you later.
Patrick, it beats me. Sounds like something you put on toast.
Not sure, exactly.
Maybe something to do with Oggy Doggy?
I thought perhaps the person who wrote it was trying to say "analogy"?
However, I think an "ogy" sounds like a nice drink you'd enjoy in front of a blazing fire.
"Barkeep, another round of ogies for me and the boys!"
Maybe an anti-obscenity filter removed "anal" from "analogy"?
"There is a link posted in the thread just below this one that needs to be addressed by Roman Catholic lay apologists..."
No there isn't. That link may safely be disregarded.
I presumed it to be a Latin word we use as a suffix meaning "how one thinks" in words like theolOGY or criminolOGY. But I believe the correct term might be "ology" which can mean the learning of something. That's just my guess.
Could the dung represent our sin nature as opposed to our actual sins? The sins are removed completely and the sin nature temporarily covered when we repent. Even though God justifies us once, we need continual sanctification, because we keep sinning. Our sin nature (the dung) really only gets covered while we're alive. Until we die and receive that final sanctification, we don't lose our sin nature completely, right? I believe that's why the Apostle Paul said, "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Col 3:9-10)
It'd be nice if we did get rid of our "earthly nature" at justification but we don't. Even Paul said he did what he didn't want to do and that he was the chief sinner. Sounds like some "dung" remained for Paul.
All that being said, I'd never heard the quotation before I read Dave's post.
Hey Dave,
Why not go through some of those German and Latin sources of Luther (and Luther research) you're keen on citing? Perhaps you could find the "dung" quote. You're the only guy i know that has those old out-of-print German and Latin sources at his fingertips.
JS
Prolly cuz I can't read German and not much Latin, James.
Oh, while I got ya here, I was askin' ya b4 what yer circular definition of Christian was? Or is that presumptuous of me, to ask someone to define their terms?
If I recall, I think I asked if you would apply the same standards of judgment to your own position on the 'definition of christian'. If your own position likewise can be proved to be 'circular', um...what's the point?
His answer was not circular, he simply refused to answer the question. Answer his first.
Hi "Inquisitor,"
It appears then a discussion will not take place.
Have a nice day.
First, every so often I need to give another "thank you" to Dave for his wonderful work.
Second, anytime you read anything I write, always picture an implicit "Now, I'm not much for book-learnin', but..." in front of it.
Thirdly, I;ve used the snow-covered dunghill (though I usually say "s***heap") a number of times expalining the Catholic concept of justification and sanctification. It seems to very accurately explain what we become at the first instant our life of grace begins--that is, our baptism--and then, with God's help, sanctification starts to kick in.
Hey Jeff,
How r ya guy? Good 2 c u.
James,
I don't recall being asked that, but the answer is: of course I will. Now what is your definition? Presuppositionalism is circular by its own definition and by the admission of its proponents, such as yourself. My more evidentialist apologetics is not, I contend, though I agree that all views involve unproven axioms at some point and Christian faith requires just that: faith, along with any reasonable evidences.
That said, it is rather elementary that if someone bandies about the term "Christian" and attempts to exclude certain folks from the category, that we ought to be entitled to know what definition such a one is working from, no?
Why are you so squeamish about the question? Do you mean to say that you really have no answer?
Hi Dave,
I appreciate your honesty:
"...all views involve unproven axioms at some point and Christian faith requires just that: faith, along with any reasonable evidences."
It's not that I don't have an answer, I just don't see the point in having you tear down my definition and then I tear down yours. Sounds like a "draw".
As an aside, Presuppositional apologetics also uses "evidences"- Do a search and read some things by Greg Bahnsen or John Frame. if you can find Frame, read him. The evidences though, only make sense in a "context".
If you've never listened to the Stein/Bahnsen debate, you're in for a treat- it's fairly easy to find on-line. Presuppositional apologetics at its best.
I stopped by here only to comment on some of your recent historical offerings on Luther, not to engage in what i think a Christian is. It's really not a secret anyway, I am a Calvinist, so i am not ecumenical when it comes to sola fide (i'm not one of those "Max Thurian" type of Calvinists- no wonder he converted to Rome). Anyone denying sola fide will not be holding hands with me singing kum-bah-yah any time soon.
Regards,
You can evade if you wish, but if sola fide defines a Christian, then John Wesley and Methodists, the whole Wesleyan tradition, and many traditional Anglicans are not Christians.
You may be comfortable with a conception of Christianity which excludes folks like John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and Dorothy Sayers; I am not. And I dare say that most Protestants and even probably a majority of Calvinists, would agree.
Hi Dave,
So be it.
I wasn't aware that John Wesley denied sola fide, but i've never really studied his writings. This is news to me.
Whether or not wesley denied sola fide depends on how you define sola fide. I think wesley himself (at least for much of his career) would be horrified to hear that he didn't believe in sola fide. Certainly in the years after his "heartwarming" at Aldersgate Street he claimed to believe in sola fide. But even then his view was somewhat different from both Lutheran and Reformed versions. And later in life (partly because of fierce controversies with Calvinists) he modified his earlier views and gave considerably more place to good works. My wife is far more of a Wesley expert than I am. But I think that right to the end of his life Wesley would claim that he did believe in sola fide. Whether his "sola fide" is heretical from a Catholic point of view I'm not sure. And Calvinists seem rather divided as to whether it passes muster from their point of view. Generally I think the hardline folks see it as not as bad as "Rome's" view but a dangerous move in that direction.
From the paper posted below: "Reflections on Justification":
"With regard to the condition of salvation, it may be remembered that I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal obedience, to be the ordinary condition of final salvation . . . At what time soever faith is given, holiness commences in the soul. For that instant `the love of God' (which is the source of holiness) `is shed abroad in the heart'."
(A Farther Appeal, 1745, Works, London: 1831, VIII, 68 ff.)
"Suffer me to warn you of another silly, unmeaning word: Do not say, `I can do nothing'. If so, you know nothing of Christ; then you have no faith: For if you have, if you believe, then you `can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth you'. You can love him and keep his Commandments."
(A Blow at the Root, 1762, Works, X, 369)
"1. God works in us - therefore man can work. Prevenient grace is accorded to all. 2. God works in you - therefore you must work. You must work together with Him, or He will cease Working."
(Working Out Our Own Salvation, 1788, Works, VI, 511 ff.)
"Wesley himself claimed to teach nothing but justification by faith. But he was not satisfied, like the pietists before him. with bringing sanctification and justification into the closest possible relation, after the Calvinist formula he was fond of recalling. More penetrating than any of his predecessors, he criticised Luther's opposition of faith to works as a sophistry. As early as the year 1739, when he started on his new course of action, he denounced what he called Luther's `mania of solifideism'. Luther's commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, with its unbalanced depreciation of the divine Law, was in his view more likely to be pernicious than beneficial in its results. His reason was that the holiness of Christ should by no means be opposed to the holiness accessible to the Christian, but, rather, be represented as its unique source. Far from admitting, therefore, that the epistle of St. James deserved to be called an `epistle of straw' [Luther's phrase], he called it `the great antidote Against the poison' of a justification which required no moral change in the Christian . . .
"Wesley . . . taught more and more clearly that since the great effect of conversion was the regeneration by grace of the human will, the human will ought to work for its own salvation, and make daily progress, otherwise, even if the conversion was real in the beginning, it would become ineffective, through want of perseverance."
(Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, translated by A.V. Littledale, London: Harvill Press, 1956, 221-222)
Note that the opinions date from throughout his long ministry, so it doesn't look like much changed in any fundamental sense, though I'm sure Wesley's thought developed.
The first three citations above were retrieved from the book: Wesley and Sanctifica
. . . Sanctification, by Harald Lindstrom (Lutheran), Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press (division of Zondervan), 1980.
There is much more data in that book, if someone wants to challenge me on this.
In any event, I highly doubt that James Swan will now start writing polemical tracts against Methodists and Wesleyans, even though his interior logic forces him to concede that they aren't Christians (after having taken in the information that I provided for him). That "theological righteous indignation" is reserved only for the Catholic Church.
More on Wesley's denial of "faith alone":
"4. Nor, lastly, is he distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. If you say, "Yes, he is; for he thinks 'we are saved by faith alone:'" I answer, You do not understand the terms. By salvation he means holiness of heart and life. And this he affirms to spring from true faith alone. Can even a nominal Christian deny it? Is this placing a part of religion for the whole? "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law." We do not place the whole of religion (as too many do, God knoweth) either in doing no harm, or in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God. No, not in all of them together; wherein we know by experience a man may labour many years, and at the end have no religion at all, no more than he had at the beginning. Much less in any one of these; or, it may be, in a scrap of one of them: Like her who fancies herself a virtuous woman, only because she is not a prostitute; or him who dreams he is an honest man, merely because he does not rob or steal. May the Lord God of my fathers preserve me from such a poor, starved religion as this! Were this the mark of a Methodist, I would sooner choose to be a sincere Jew, Turk, or Pagan.
"5. "What then is the mark? Who is a Methodist, according to your own account?" I answer: A Methodist is one who has "the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him;" one who "loves the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind, and with all his strength. God is the joy of his heart, and the desire of his soul; which is constantly crying out, "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee! My God and my all! Thou art the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever!" "
(Wesley, The Character of a Methodist, date not given; emphasis added)
(http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/
charmeth.stm)
Now, one will note that Wesley often states that he accepted "justification by faith alone," but he defines it differently than Luther, Calvin, Lutherans, Reformed, and Baptists do. Far as I can tell, he views it much as a Catholic would: faith and works, justification and sanctification, conversion and holiness are in close organic harmony with each other, rather than formally separated, with works playing no part whatsoever in salvation.
Many of Wesley's statements rule out the latter interpretation. Both his view of justification and sanctification differ from the standard Reformed / Baptist / Lutheran understanding of these notions and categories.
Here is a fascinating overview of John Wesley, if anyone's interested:
"John Wesley at 300: the man, his times and his faith," by Victor Shepherd
(http://www.ucobserver.org/archives/
june03_cvst.htm)
Example:
"Of all the misunderstandings that falsify Wesley and his spiritual descendants, none is more defamatory than the assumption that the Methodist tradition doesn’t think. While it is readily acknowledged that the Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox families within the church catholic think and have always thought, Methodism, it is sometimes said, merely emotes.
"Wesley contradicts this. Having insisted that his lay preachers study five hours per day, he studied more himself. He authored grammar textbooks in seven of the eight foreign languages he knew.
"He deplored as narrow, ignorant and foolish the suggestion that preachers need read only one book. Such fanaticism meant that reading only the Bible guaranteed misreading it. Those who complained of having "no taste for reading" he rebuked on the spot: "Contract a taste for it by use, or return to your trade" — and watched more than a few preachers move back to farm, shop or mine.
"His reading was as broad as it was deep. No area of intellectual endeavour escaped him. All his life he kept abreast of contemporary explorations in natural science. Schooled in classical philosophy at Oxford, he probed the contemporary empiricist thinking of John Locke. Aware that history is a theatre both of God’s activity and of the church’s response, he wrote a world history."
Edwin,
Thank you for your balanced comments. I don't plan on delving into Wesley's writings any time soon.
It seems to me though (and i'm sure you would agree), one should attempt to read and understand what Wesley is saying from Wesley's point of view.
Sproul at one point answers attempts to answer whether or not Arminians are "christian"- He says "barely"- perhaps this has some significance to a Reformed approach to Wesley:
“Arminians affirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They agree that we have no meritorious work that counts toward our justification, that our justification rests solely on the righteousness and merit of Christ, that sola fide means justification is by Christ alone, and that we must trust not in our own works, but in Christ’s work for our salvation. In all this they differ from Rome on crucial points.”
“Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism ‘in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.’We notice that this charge is qualified by the words in effect. Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. if they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would be explicitly denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our justification. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.
Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will r
continued-
Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has “in effect” merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.”
I love it how James regards Edwin's comments as "balanced" because they are more ambiguous than mine. I gave my point of view along with extensive documentation right from Wesley and Wesley scholars, yet (by seeming implication), my view isn't "balanced".
Meanwhile, James has no time for "delving" into Wesley's writings. But he has plenty of time for delving into R.C.Sproul's writings, when the latter makes his fallacious, condescending dismissals of Arminians.
The truth is the truth. I didn't make Wesley believe what he did. Nor am I interested in the tired "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" discussion. Both sides in that debate distort what the other believes.
The present discussion was about how we define the word "Christian." The word "Christian" is not an exact equivalent of "Calvinist" (in case anyone didn't know that).
Dave,
You need to chill out a little bit. I appreciated Edwin's comments. I don't even know who "Edwin" is.
Fact is, I really have very little interest in Wesley. If Wesley really did ultimately rely on his own works along with faith, i do not consider that mixture a recipe for salvation.I really don't care if that sounds harsh. My convictions from the study of Scripture dictates whatever awful truth I may hold to. I really don't care if you find it offensive or not.
Do I think you understand Wesley? I don't really know, I don't know very much about Wesley, nor do I really desire to go do the work needed to see if you've got Wesley right (I am though, very sceptical of your research methods).
I've never read Bouyer (whom you cited)- but if his comments about what Wesley thought about Luther are correct, Wesley didn't know very much about Luther. If you agree with Wesley on Luther as cited by Bouyer- you also misunderstand Luther.
The Catholic perspective recognizes that God has given us everything we have and are, including free will. The gift of free will is among God’s greatest cutting edge creations. It is REAL because God makes it so and preserves it so, to the point of allowing sin to exist. It exists in context with teachings of Election and reprobation, not in opposition to them. Good works are man’s free response in faith, hope and love to God’s grace and are themselves totally enabled by God’s grace. The concept of man’s will in bondage to sin is self-contradictory, because only an unjust God would credit actions that one cannot resist as sin. Sin has no meaning where one has not the ability to resist. Faith that credits no works despairs in the power of God’s grace to enable us to really resist sin and participate in His saving work. Faith without works despairs in the power of God’s grace to allow us to become truly just as Christ is just. Faith alone leaves us deformed in our sin. Faith alone is based on a fraud, that God sees us for something we are not. Faith acting in love affirms the freedom of the will that God has created in us. It is conversion that heals us and makes us what God sees, the image of His Son.
>(I am though, very sceptical of your research methods).
Likewise, as shown in my several refutations of yours.
Dave,
I had to cut my earlier comment short and didn't go into enough detail to explain what I meant. As the passage you quote from "The Character of a Methodist" shows, Wesley did claim to believe in salvation by "faith alone." That was my only point. What he meant by it was definitely different from what classical Protestantism meant by it, and while I think it is somewhat different from the Catholic position, it's not radically so. (Wesley would reject any language of "merit," but how far that's just a difference of terminology I'm not sure. He would certainly reject such things as indulgences, with the implication that you can in some sense have "extra" merit. And Wesley didn't believe in Purgatory, although the modern Methodist theologian Jerry Walls has argued that Wesley's theology would harmonize well with the doctrine of Purgatory.)
As I understand it, Wesley's position was basically this:
Human beings cannot save themselves by their own merits, but must accept their sinfulness and throw themselves on the mercy of God in faith. Once they do this, their past sins are forgiven and they are given the strength to lead a new life. But for final justification, a life of holiness and obedience is required. God will forgive us whenever we fall, if we repent and turn back to Him. (Wesley also distinguished between "sins properly so-called" and "faults," which amounts to a distinction between mortal and venial sin though he didn't use the term.) I believe that Wesley did at times speak of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, but in the texts that I'm familiar with he seems to be avoiding the term, and speaks instead of our sins _not_ being imputed.
All of this is very compatible with Catholicism, and seems miles away from classical Protestantism. But then we have the fact that Wesley worked side by side with evangelical Calvinists for much of his career, and while they frequently quarreled, they recognized each other as brothers in Christ, at least most of the time. Relations soured after 1770, when Wesley repeated an earlier announcement (from 1744!) that he had previously "leaned too much toward Calvinism," and affirmed the value of preparation for grace (that people should be told to repent and do good works in preparation for justification). That's mostly what I had in mind in saying that his position developed. Many of his Calvinist colleagues did accuse him at that point of denying sola fide. But in his earlier years most of them didn't seem to think that he was teaching a radically different doctrine of salvation, although they thought he was wrong on predestination. Since I don't think these guys were idiots, I'm hesitant to say outright that Wesley "didn't believe in sola fide." That was my point.
My own view, as expressed in my blog post on justification a couple of months ago, is that the center of disagreement really lies elsewhere than it has usually been placed. And I say this
Shucks--I understand you having a word limit, but it would be nice if there was some kind of warning . . . .
Let me finish briefly. The point I made on my blog was that all evangelical Protestants agree over against Catholicism that saving faith is something qualitatively different from unformed faith. Faith in the soteriological sense necessarily involves a disposition that will lead one to live a holy life. This is an important difference, because it affects how you preach the Gospel. Do you assume that your hearers have faith, and exhort them to works of charity; or do you tell them that if they are not living lives of holiness then they don't have faith at all? The latter is what Wesley would do, and that is why he was able to cooperate (up to a point, at least) with evangelical Protestants who in many respects had a radically different soteriology.
At the same time, Wesley was able to appreciate Catholic piety far more than other Protestants, precisely because what he looked for was evidence of living faith rather than an adherence to a particular understanding of imputation, etc. With regard to soteriology Methodism, far more than Anglicanism, has a potential to be a bridge church between Catholicism and Protestantism. Anglicanism includes several radically different soteriologies. But Wesley has a coherent soteriology which open-minded people among both classical Protestants and Catholics can recognize as essentially sound.
Or they can just condemn it, which many conservative Calvinists do with great relish.
Excellent commentary, Edwin. Thanks! While his fellow Protestant Calvinists go after Wesley "with great relish," I will continue having immense respect for him. If the Calvinists have more in common with his theology than I do, they (the ones who trash him) sure aren't acting like it, are they?
I don't think they do have more in common with Wesley than you do. I think that Wesley had a lot in common with Catholicism as well--indeed, he recognized this to some extent. But he had strong prejudices (largely political) against Catholicism as a system. And it's only fair to say that Catholics of that era weren't terribly ecumenical themselves! Nowadays, I think an evangelically minded Catholic like yourself can recognize a lot more in common with Wesley than a lot of conservative Calvinists can.
The main common front, really, was against the religion of respectability in 18th-century England which identified Christianity with what evangelicals of that era liked to call "mere morality." At least for a while, Wesley and the Calvinists could cooperate on that ground. But things did go sour at the end. And modern Calvinists are particularly anti-Arminian because the Arminians took over most of Protestantism in the 19th century. So those who remain faithful to hardline Calvinism see Arminianism as a particularly pernicious threat, and Wesley is one of the figures who got it all going. (Charles Finney is another of their favorite villains, though I'm not a particularly big fan of Finney myself.)
It seems to me that Wesley in relation to the zeitgeist and established religion in England is a lot like Kierkegaard's relation to Danish Lutheranism. It's a reform and (in the very best sense) "radical" spirit, which is why I admire these two men so much.
Heaven knows we Catholics need men like that too. I think that John Paul II was one of them, as is the current pope.
bank of america wholesale mortgage bank of america wholesale mortgage bank of america wholesale mortgage // mortgage license florida mortgage license florida mortgage license florida
Former Lutheran - now Catholic William Cork provided another tantalizing, ultimately frustrating article on the subject
Now, sadly, reverted to Seventh-Day Adventist heresy. . . .
Commenting by HaloScan
