The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Surprised by the Methodist!

Theology Ecclesiology
#21

Sherman makes a good point related to numerous already/not-yet positions taken in the scriptures.

God doesn’t wait until His people are perfect before accepting them. He accepts them and then leads them to perfection, which involves them renouncing their sins.

What God doesn’t accept (although He may “wink” at it, as St. Paul very daringly puts it, in longsuffering patience) is impenitent sinning. In that regard alone, subsidarily to the overall acceptance of the person (since without continuing active grace from God the person could not continue to exist at all even as a sinner abusing the grace of God), God can be said not to accept the person either.

This pattern is complex, but I think it is demonstrably and routinely repeated in the scriptures at many levels, whether we’re talking about the pre-Abrahamic people, pre-Mosaic Jews and Gentiles, post-Mosaic Jews and Gentiles, or post-Messianic Jews and Gentiles.

The complexity and nuance, however, can lead to confusion, especially when various portions of the total situation are also routinely stressed (with exceedingly strong language no less.)

#22

Methodists protest Western (and Eastern) Catholicism claims, too, you know. :wink:

(Heck, they protest Anglicanism to some extent!–being a direct offshoot not strictly identifiable with it.)

#23

The UM’s are different everywhere you go! I went to a conservative UM church from 1993 to 2002. The church was conservative, but that was quite maverick for the conference which was quite liberal. The conference wanted to break it up and they did so by sending our pastor away and replacing him (the UM church very frequently changes their pastors by re appointment) with a pastor who gave a young man in the congregation an American Indian prayer book for his birthday. We grilled this pastor when he was up for appointment and he claimed to believe in the various things we asked him about, but after he was appointed, he showed his true colors. He was more of an “all roads lead to God” kind of guy and the church fell apart, just as they wished.

The years I was there, it was a great church, though I wasn’t into UR at the time. They started a modern church service and my brother, a non methodist, became the pastor of that service. It was very maverick for them. I think you might find a UM church that could fit in with your beliefs, but it would more likely be a matter of luck since every congregation can be different.

#24

Those are interesting thoughts. So you would say that discipleship is optional to be saved? But without faith it is impossible to please God!

#25

the best my poor brain could come up with is that true discipleship must come after the grace, and grace is a free gift to those who believe…
but grace is offered while we’re still sinners, so we “accept” it by believing it…and then God starts to disciple us.
He does not require that we change as soon as we meet Him. He is the one that is faithful to bring to completion what He has begun in us.

i’d summarise by saying discipleship is the child of God’s love (as demonstrated by grace) and our faith in His ability to help us change

#26

I’m pretty sure this is the sort of thing Roofus is complaining about. Which is not the same thing that Sherm (and others) are complaining about. Which Roofus agrees with them in complaining about, as they agree with him in complaining about this–but for some reason Roofus wants them to be not complaining about this and complaining about what they agree with him on instead.

sigh.

So for example:

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/upfiles/smiley/picard-facepalm.jpg

He was talking about Jesus leading sinners into repentance from their sins so as to make His disciples of them (instead of being rebels against Him). How is this in any way a denial that discipleship is optional to be saved??!

But of course, you weren’t replying to (or even accounting in) those portions, Roofus. You were only looking at the other parts:

But this is only to say what no Calv or (thoughtful) Arm would ever deny: namely that God (including in and as Jesus) doesn’t wait for us to repent before acting to reconcile us to Himself, or even before accepting us despite our sins. We don’t earn God’s salvation. We don’t convince God to desire a relationship with us by saving ourselves from our sins.

Loving the sinner but hating the sin. Loving the sinner involves accepting people “as they are” even though they’re sinners. Hating the sin involves recognizing they’re sinning and leading them out of that.

That’s what Sherman is talking about. He isn’t talking about, much less advocating, what you’re complaining about, namely ignoring the sin and not calling people to repent of it. He and other people here (not only you) are concerned about being careful not to get involved in a congregation of that sort.

#27

sorry Roofus but Jason’s right…and LOL to Picard

#28

Nope, wouldn’t say that at all. I’d say that salvation was the beginning, the start, the foundation, and goal of discipleship, AND without faith it is impossible to please God. The kingdom of God is both now and not yet, today and to come!

#29

auuugh much more elegantly put than i managed! well said, sir!

#30

Thanks James.

#31

Hi Sherman,
Boy that didn’t make any sense to me. Can you explain that or at least direct me to some scholars that can explicate such?
r

#32

try reading it again, and a bit slower?
was 100% clear to me

#33

Don’t be rude. You aren’t infallible and are capable of being decieved as much as anyone else. Because something is clear to you “don’t mean a thing”. It’s clear to atheists that there is no God.

#34

What do you not understand specifically? To expand upon my points though:

I believe that salvation is the beginning and end of discipleship. On one hand, we do not begin being disciples of Christ and growing in Christ likeness until we are saved. On the other hand scripture affirms that we are to work out our own salvation, becoming more like Christ every day. And from another perspective, our salvation was accomplished in Christ through his sacrifice. And from another perspective we do not fully become like Jesus until we see Him face to face on that day. etc. etc. etc. Salvation is like a diamond with many different facets and hughs.

And concerning the Kingdom of God being both now and not yet, it’s a common means of referencing the very present reality of the Kingdom while all the while reconizing that it is not fully seen/understood/experienced yet by us. The kingdom of God is both a present reality and a future hope for us.

#35

i don’t know how i could’ve been more polite! i just suggest you read it again. i am definitely not infallible, and many many things are unclear to me. but sometimes i reread something and it makes sense.

a) you’ve suggested that we are saying that it’s unimportant for people to be discipled…and that sin is OK and let’s all be happy
b) we’ve said that isn’t the case…but discipleship must come from a place of love…and if someone hasn’t experienced grace, how can they be discipled? you can’t disciple an atheist, for example, until he accepts the grace.

so…where is your problem with what’s been said?
what isn’t clear to me is why you have any issue with what people are telling you? it’s fine to question and debate…but this is getting ludicrous.

#36

corpselight,
I apologize for getting you wrong. Sorry, man. I don’t think that the speed at which I read it will make much difference, as these are issues that I am quite familiar with and I have found much confusion from many angles (so it isn’t such a simple matter that it could be resolved by reading it slower!

#37

I’m not worried about “who is right”- I’m interested in the Truth!

#38

Let’s try to narrow the topics a bit. Here is what I have seen among some Methodists: the message seems to be that God accepts you as you are (to the unbeliever). Perhaps this is true in one sense as Jesus trys to woo the unbeliever into a covenant relationship. But here is what is so often left out (it seems to me that Sherman left it out, but I may have to check again. I only heard one aspect of how Jesus views the unbeliever.

But it is also true that the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever. I mean, that is what Jesus said, right? Seems obvious to me. I won’t ask you to “read more slowly”, just read it for what it says :slight_smile: I know that it is a painful verse, but it needs to be accepted.

#39

Well, Sherman talked explicitly about of Jesus viewing the unbeliever as someone who needs accepting by God first before they can be saved.

And Sherman talked explicitly about Jesus viewing the unbeliever as a sinner who needs repenting of their sins in order to be saved.

That’s two aspects. Which one of those did you hear and not the other?

I’m pretty sure Sherman has elsewhere affirmed that God punishes impenitent sinners, and keeps on doing so for as long as they remain impenitent. (We have ultra-u’s here, as you know, but I don’t recall Sherman being one. I know several of the other people in this thread aren’t either, myself and Sonia prominently. Every ultra-universalist I have met on this site, however, still affirms the two things Sherman did.)

I don’t recall him explicitly mentioning God’s wrath on impenitent sinners here–probably because the topic hadn’t specifically come up yet–but it fits conceptually under his affirmation that sinners need repenting of their sins in order to be saved from their sins.

#40

Jn.3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

As long as a person does not believe in Jesus, he will not see (percieve, understand, embrace, experience) LIFE, and in fact, he continues to live under a sence of God being angry at him, cut off from abundant life in Christ. Note though that this statment doesn’t imply that the person will never repent, either in this life or post-mortem. In fact, it is meant to inspire people to repent and put their faith in Jesus so that they might have Life!

Concerning whether or not repentance is left out of the message of the Methodists, I know not. If so, they’ve departed far from the message of John Weasley their founder. They do appear to be much more inclusive in their approach to minstry and life than Evangelicals, but that’s part of the reason I’m attracted to them. In evangelical circles, it really doesn’t matter how much one practically loves God and loves people, what matters is what one believes. One can be a member of the church though he be a drunk, mean man, IF he says he believes everything in their statement of faith. But if one disagrees with anything on the statement of faith, it doesn’t matter how much the person loves God, his fellow man, and lives a righteous life-style, he cannot be a member of that church. Something’s wrong with this picture, I believe.