/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

There are a number of non UMC Wesleyan denominations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nazarene?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Church?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Methodist_Church?wprov=sfla1

There is also a new traditionalist denomination that will soon be splitting from the UMC in the wake of the homosexual controversy. Particular churches can vote to leave. I don't know what their timeline looks like, it was pre covid.

You should also consider independent churches like the "Bible Church" movement, you might find that their distinctives are Wesleyan.

What about methodism do you find correct when compared to the similar alternatives of Anglicanism or Baptist theology, for example?

>>843819

Methodists do not say "faith and works", they are entirely sola fide.

OP isn't using "orthodox" to mean EO.

>>843074

Wesley summed it up himself: "Methodism is the old religion, the religion of the Bible, the religion of the primitive Church, the religion of the Church of England."

That last part about the Church of England needs some context. Some people of his time wondered if he was trying to separate from the Church of England, but he was just reassuring them that he was one of them and not being radical. He remained an Anglican himself. He was merely pointing Englishmen to the natural conclusion that they set out on hundreds of years before with Cranmer and Tyndale. That Anglicans shouldn't be content to merely be "Catholics without a pope", but recapture the old faith that England once had before it was corrupted. This started with exploring all of the Church. He was one of the first to really use the Eastern fathers in his teachings as much as the Western, for example.

>>843075

>What about methodism do you find correct when compared to the similar alternatives of Anglicanism or Baptist theology, for example?

I, for one, would say that there are a lot of us who recognize theological truth in the Orthodox church. The differences are mostly ones of culture and simplified rituals and a larger emphasis on the bible (not that Orthodox don't love the bible, but it's not as widespread as in the Protestant world). Anglicans see this too, which is why so many traditionalist Anglicans end up converting to Orthodoxy. But Methodists are the types who feel insincere if we adopt Orthodoxy in every sense (i.e. praying to the East, using the same calendar, having icon corners, differences in ecclesiology, and not LARPing as Russians).

Baptists are really quite different. They tend to be pretty adamant about Sola Fide, do they not? Methodists, Catholics, and Orthodox all say it is Faith and Works.

>>843820

Oops. I edited and reposted. Sorry about that. And that is wrong. Methodists teach Prevenient Grace, Free Will, and emphasize Sanctification along with Faith. Wesley has a whole book called "Christian Perfection".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_perfection

>>843822

One more thing, it should be pointed out that Wesley's idea of "perfectionism" wasn't legalistic or anything like that. It revolved around following the law of Love. Much like the Epistle of James tells us. "Works" don't just many any works. It's "works of love" that count in the Christian life. Like James says, what use is someone's faith if they treat one man with favor and make other men sit in humility? This is an example of a dead faith that does not work in love.

>>843822

That's ok

Prevenient grace and free will are not alternatives to sola fide, neither is Christian perfectionism. You are probably misunderstanding sola fide as antinomianism.

>>843825

I should also add that I'm not trying to insult Baptists on any personal level. Most I've met are decent people and helping the kingdom of God as much as the next person. But that's all despite their theological emphasis on Sola Fide. They say "Faith Alone", but their actual lives tend to say more than that. Or it's a "faith" greater than what it appears. They have the fruits of the spirit, they want to be holy, they have love, they have generosity, they show hospitality, etc.. And like Methodists, they're not merely content with personal habits, but are also known for building hospitals and other outreach goals. And they weep just as others when they see this world fall into depravity and lawlessness. I don't think "Sola Fide" does justice with how most of them actually live. But that's the words they choose for themselves. If it was up to me, I'd say all real Christians are close in Spirit.. but theologically, we tend to split a lot of hairs.

>>843822

>He was merely pointing Englishmen to the natural conclusion that they set out on hundreds of years before with Cranmer and Tyndale

Cranmer and Tyndale were Reformed

>He was one of the first to really use the Eastern fathers in his teachings as much as the Western

He most certainly was not.

>>843826

Again you are misunderstanding the definition of sola fide and mistaking it as a baptist distinctive

>>843845

>He most certainly was not.

That's quite the accomplishment. Eastern fathers were barely even published, let alone translated in the early Reformation. Even in Wesley's day, the options were slim, albeit growing. And periodic quoting of Chrysostom doesn't qualify as the East in general.

>>843859

If you mean the English Reformation, sure. But that's not the Continental Reformation or what most people mean by Reformed. And the man who compiled the book of Common Prayer, of all things, can hardly be called any typical sort of Reformed. He was drawing on much older traditions than Calvin and Luther. Things that they were happy to throw out. And Cranmer was never good enough for Reformed afterwards, as they kept wanting to chip traditions away, and bring it down to it's most drab basics. Same thing with the Great Bible (whose language extended into later into the Bishop's Bible and KJV). These all uphold ecclesiastical terminology compared to things like the Geneva. They are not the same sort of "Reformed". And this is all eventually proven with Puritans throwing a fit, causing revolt, killing the king, and then eventually getting kicked out of England themselves. They're no better than the Bloody Mary who killed Cranmer, just from the opposite end.

>>843859

"Faith alone" is not even a biblical teaching, so why should I invest some kind of in depth interest in it? The only time "faith alone" is even an actual phrase in the scriptures is in James, where he dismisses it: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24. It's statements like this that caused Luther to side with his own theology, rather than an Apostle, and call James an "Epistle of Straw". Sola Fide is nothing but a farce and that's where I leave it. At the same time, I thank God that despite their reliance on this slogan, many Protestants are led by the Holy Spirit and live out lives far more admirable than what they're actually teaching.

>>843862

>disparage a theological position

>refuse to find out what it means

Ok

>>843863

It's only two words. It's going to be difficult to convince me that there's some deeper issue at play. You haven't even convinced Orthodox and Catholics of this for hundreds of years, so I don't know why you're trying it with Methodists. Not even Luther made it a particularly deep issue, when it comes down to it. That's why he jumped the shark and just put himself above an Apostle. That just shows his own lack of finesse with his own argument. He took Sola Fide at face value and ran with it to it's foolish end. He brought himself to the point of opposing scripture itself to defend it. He didn't even try to rationalize it or create some weasel-ish explanation of how he and James were simultaneously right. No, he stupidly said that James was wrong. That's the shallowness of Sola Fide.

In contrast, Wesley did the opposite. Rather than calling it an Epistle of Straw, he called James: "‘the great antidote against the poison of a justification which required no moral change in the Christian.’ So I don't know where you guys are getting ideas like this >>843820.

Further:

"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)

>>843865

You are openly acknowledging that you don't know what you're talking about so why do you continue? Methodists affirm sola fide. Sola fide is not antinomianism. It's a soteriological statement.

Luther retracted his epistle of straw statement and the canon of scripture was still an ongoing matter of debate even in the Roman church, and he's also just one reformer.

>>843862

>That's quite the accomplishment. Eastern fathers were barely even published, let alone translated in the early Reformation. Even in Wesley's day, the options were slim, albeit growing. And periodic quoting of Chrysostom doesn't qualify as the East in general.

I don't know what to tell you, Anon. We have the writings of the reformers, and their enemies. We know who and what they quoted.

>>843862

>If you mean the English Reformation, sure. But that's not the Continental Reformation or what most people mean by Reformed.

Well, they were. Sorry. Again, we have their writings, we know what they believed, and we know with whom they associated. They most certainly were not synergists, as nobody even believed there could be such a thing as a synergistic Protestant until Arminius and his followers.

>And the man who compiled the book of Common Prayer, of all things, can hardly be called any typical sort of Reformed. He was drawing on much older traditions than Calvin and Luther. Things that they were happy to throw out. And Cranmer was never good enough for Reformed afterwards, as they kept wanting to chip traditions away, and bring it down to it's most drab basics. Same thing with the Great Bible (whose language extended into later into the Bishop's Bible and KJV). These all uphold ecclesiastical terminology compared to things like the Geneva. They are not the same sort of "Reformed".

So your argument for Cranmer not being Reformed was that the liturgical reformation of the Church of England was gradual. Right…

>And this is all eventually proven with Puritans throwing a fit, causing revolt, killing the king, and then eventually getting kicked out of England themselves

You have a very simplistic and unrealistic understanding of history. The English Civil War was over 100 years after England had broken with Rome, and as you might expect the political and theological environment in England was very different. By the time Charles was put on trial, the Reformation as a historical event had already been ended by the Treaty of Westphalia. Rome no longer represented an existential threat to Christendom. And while the English Civil War was the culmination of a hundred years of theological discord within the Church of England, it was first and foremost a political struggle between the crown and parliament, caused ultimately by the absolutist philosophy Charles inherited from his father.

>They're no better than the Bloody Mary who killed Cranmer, just from the opposite end.

That is patently offensive. You are talking about Christian men, some of whom were martyred for Christ, even by the very woman you dare to compare them to. Will you tell them this when you meet them in heaven?

>>843865

Dear Lord, your ignorance of church history is astounding…

>>843074

Wouldn't the most orthodox form of Protestantism be Lutheranism? I don't get how Protestants basically shun the founder of their sects. If they believe he was right to break away from the Church then why wouldn't they also join the sect he stated instead of John Wesley's sect?

>>843881

The question for us is "what is theologically correct?" not "how many degrees of separation am I away from Rome?" or "which is the only valid church?"

This is because in Protestantism the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church is the invisible universal church and not an institution.