Whooo! I am going to have to listen to this again. That’s good as it shows there are areas in which I need educating. Now is the time to return to our first love, Jesus! Stay strong folks! Satan may be smiling but God The Almighty ALWAYS has a remnant and He wins. Be strong and courageous and do not be discouraged. Live for Jesus!
I like the way Andrew defines and explains "Total Depravity" around the 30:00 mark. Equal to that, I like how Jeffrey asks good questions to get specific aspects out for our understanding. Well done gentlemen!
I love listening to this conversation. So much I don't know! But since I am attending a conservative Presbyterian at the moment and don't really understand predestination yet (maybe never), I would really like to understand these theological ideas. Thank you!
As a Protestant Anglican, I'd love to see Methodists reembrace the Methodist Articles of Religion as they have been traditionally understood (before liberalism).
Andrew is right to trace this line. A common accusation against Wesleyans who hold a high view of Scripture is that "that view is a Calvinistic point of view." It is not. Wesley stands apart from the low-view of Scripture Wesleyanism of today. And now we have the EUB history through Andrew's research. No less than the doctrines of the Trinity, Atonement, Deity of Christ, etc. the doctrine of the full inspiration of Scripture belongs to and is at home in all branches of the Church. God has left us a trustworthy witness in the Holy Scriptures.
Actually, Arminianism IS a form of Calvinism known as "Bezan Calvinism". Arminius was fully Reformed, and agreed with total depravity and perseverance of the saints and even unconditional election and irresistable grace. He disagreed with Calvin on how those things worked, but he always affirmed that he was within the Reformed camp. As a Baptist historian, I deal with this all the time, as I am what is now called a "provisionist". The Calvinists call us Arminian and the Arminians call us Calvinist. We are neither. We are also accused of being "semi pelagian", which really is something that never existed, as Pelagius never actually taught what Augustine accussed him of teaching, and Pelagius was actually found innocent of all charges twice. At Augustine's continued insistence and lies, Pelagius was finally condemned. Although we have always believed what we now believe, our terminology has changed, not our theology. We no longer use the term "total depravity" or "perseverance of the saints" We do NOT believe we are born guilty of Adam's sin, but do suffer from the consequences. We would say its like a child born with defects because its mother drank while pregnant. The child is not guilty of the mothers actions, but suffers the consequences of them. The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, teaches that even infants are worthy of damnation to hell, and they believe most infants who die go to hell, unless they are "elect". Not every Calvinist believes this, but if they dont, they arent consistent with their theology. At some point, we actually become sinners by choice. Also, Calvinism teaches you cannot know for certain if youre among the elect until after death, because you may stop short of "persevering" at any time. So in essence, Calvinism and Arminianism has issues when it comes to assurance of salvation. We are content to say that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin when the gospel is preached, not requiring "prevenient grace" in the classical understanding of it.. From our pov, prevenient grace says God actually "saves you" to overcome depravity, at which point you may choose to go back into a lost state. To my understanding, Whitefield and Wesley agreed on most points, but differed on the atonement and thus God's love for every person.
This is a really helpful comment. Would you please follow up with me by emailing some resources to follow up with and substantiate your arguments here? I'm at plainspokenpod@gmail.com
@@caman171 Thank you for your comment. Yes it is true that Arminius was taught by Theodore Beza, and Arminius himself was a ordained minister in good standing within the Reformed Church, however Arminius did not teach unconditional election or irresistible grace. (perhaps he believed this earlier in his life and then later changed his views, but Arminius scholars are not in agreement on this ). Concerning Original Guilt, the Early Dutch Arminians uniformly rejected such a notion. 19th century Methodists were divided upon it. Some Methodists believed in it but thought it was universally removed by Prevenient Grace, other Methodist simply rejected that we inherited Adam's guilt to begin with. My understanding of "Provisionism" or "Traditional Baptist" theology is that it is neither Arminian nor Calvinistic but a separate category. As I mentioned briefly in the video, Pelagius technically taught salvation by grace through faith, its just that he immediately turned around and radically re-defined what that meant and ended with salvation by works. Thus, I would see Augustine and Jerome's polemics against him to be more or less accurate.
@@sullivan1858 sorry I keep trying to reply, but youtube keeps deleting. try watching the video by an oxford scholar on Pelagius called "was Pelagius really a Pelagian"
I LOVE MY BIBLICAL METHODIST BROTHERS!!! As a Baptist, and student of Baptist history, it grieves me that we once had such cooperation between us, that went away because the UMC drifted away from truth. The Baptist and Methodist churches around where I live, used to all share Sunday School in what was called a Sunday School Union.. Most churches back in the late 1800's only met twice a month for preaching, but the SSU met every week. Provisionist Baptists would agree with the conclusion of a preventing grace, but not agree that the fall of Adam brought about total corruption. However, the outcome of bother our perspectives would agree that we are able to respond to saving grace by faith, and that ALL are invited to salvation.
There are some biblical Methodists left, and I believe we will grow in our proportion of American Methodism! I have a hard time believing there was ever a time when many Methodists and Baptists were able to meet in peaceful fellowship that regularly. I wonder if yours was an exceptional setting, or if perhaps it was once more common than I had understood. I know that today I regularly experience great and deep fellowship with Baptist brothers and sisters, but that this is often seen uncharitably by many Methodists. Even biblical ones! May the future be different. Or rather, may it again look like the portrait you briefly painted here!
@@plainspokenpod Ah brother you need to read more history! The Baptists invited Methodist ministers to their revival in the Georgia Association in 1793. The revivals in Kentucky had Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian preachers. Salem Methodist Campground close to me has always had Baptist preachers along with Methodist. One of my pastors growing up always said he was as "ecumenical" as you can get because he got saved hearing a Methodist preacher at a Presbyterian campground, and joined the Baptist church right there in the tabernacle. I dont think it was as rare as youve been led to believe. My parents ran a Baptist mission in a very low income area for years, and the Methodist church in Conyers Ga gave more money to the mission than the Baptists did, even tho it was a Baptist mission church. The Methodists always used the baptistry of First Baptist of Conyers when someone requested immersion,.There are many instances where Frances Asbury preached in Baptist churches. In fact Asbury was converted by Baptist preacher David Taylor. In Georgia, it was quite common for Baptists and Methodists to have joint revivals. A few years ago I had Methodist MINISTER who laughed at me because I declined to have a beer. He said "You Baptists are so narrow minded". I smiled and said "Do YOU realize that it was the Methodists who started the temperance movement and invented welchs grape juice in order to avoid wine in communion? We Baptists merely hopped on board." He was clueless and had no idea. The breach between Baptists and Methodists started when the UMC formed.
@@caman171 Interesting, perhaps a future interview on plainspokenpod can be a dialogue/panel discussion between Global Methodists, American Holiness, Free-Will Baptists, and Provisionists. See where we agree and disagree? I wasn't aware of David Taylor, but I have heard of a Dan Taylor, an early British Methodist turned General Baptist. He left Methodism because he thought John Wesley was too much of an authoritarian. Having left Methodism and rejecting an Episcopal form of government, he would later reject infant baptism as well and became a General Baptist. If memory serves me correct, his Methodist heritage remained in his understanding of sanctification. Thus, he stands in a middle ground between Wesleyan Methodism and General Baptist. However, Ill end with this note of warning: A Methodist without an episcopacy and infant baptism is essentially just a free-will Baptist, as the Rev. Dan Taylor demonstrates....
@@plainspokenpod For several years our small Methodist and Baptist churches, which are within walking distance, shared a summer Vacation Bible School. We also shared social youth group activities and 5th Sunday night joint musical services. As a child, I remember attending each other's revivals, I think, at the time, we all saw each other as fellow Christians of good will who had a slightly different point of emphasis. I grew up in the Baptist church where there were lots of revivals about salvation and the danger of Hell and attended youth at the Methodist Church where there seemed to be an emphasis on love and C.S. Lewis. I married a Methodist, raised my children there and was a member for 50 years. Now, one son's family attends a conservative Presbyterian church in Charlotte, NC, one son's family attends Presbyterian USA in Virginia, more liberal, and my daughter's family attends an independent disaffiliated Methodist Church in coastal Georgia. There are no Global UM churches within driving distance for me, so I am attending a conservative Presbyterian. There are some independent disaffiliated Methodist churches nearby, but I would rather be part of a larger connectional, missionary church. I hope some of them will join the Global MC eventually.
To cut to the chase: if these are major concerns to you, then ask if the GMC will affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). If they say, “No” then you will probably be disappointed.
I cracked up as I thought the same thing. No easy reading there. My stacks of books are approaching hoarder stage. 😂 Once I knock out a few more on holiness I will need to tap into those listed in the show notes. We have to stand firmly behind Christ.
@@joer5627 My family is a book hording family.. and as the older generations have aged, they realized I would take their books too... my daughter just brought home 20 books from school since they are remodeling and the library said they could take all they could fit in their backpacks... it continues!
Every theology has tendencies towards error and surrendering to the spirit of the age. Concern for the vulnerabilities of Methodism are fair, but we must remember that New England was once dominated by Calvinist thought.
OK, sorry all but I need to mention this. The Wesleyan Movement was not a systematic doctrine. It had strong elements of Charism. Wesley seemed on several occasions to bow to the will of the Spirit acknowledging that God was doing things that he might not have done himself. His emphasis on if preachers actually called by the spirit and granting that call even if they were a woman. He was an Anglican with solid ideas. But he also acknowledged that he had made errors. I remember the story of when his preachers thought Wesley should be the one to "street preach" to the masses and Wesley preferred the pulpit. He finally agreed to drawing lots and the lot fell to him. He accepted this as being "drafted" by God. Part of the failing of modern Methodism is it doesn't accept the work of the Spirit as over and above rational thought. I remember arguing this point with a pastor, after a lengthy explanation of how we need to make more room for the Spirit and intuition. When I got done he said "That's a very rational argument." I am what I am. As I said to him if people took my sermons about trusting the Spirit of God out of the context of the radical materialistic society in which I live they would make wrong assumptions about what I was saying. This balance of being able to be led by the Spirit of God where God leads is part of the non-doctrinal nature of Methodism. however, we left the Spriti of God far behind and have become overly rational, IMHO. Having said that. Andrew is correct. The Methodist way of Doctrinal sermons is not enough. History has proven that. It allowed people to go skipping off into error. (the UMC continues to magnificently compound and wallow in its errors even today)..its almost like there is something....original sin? Total depravity? that leads us into error if we are not very very careful. Sorry, I had to write. Its something I have strong feelings and thoughts on. Obviously, if you don't want to hear it you probably haven't read this far.
I have enjoyed reading through your thoughts on the conversation we had here! Don't be sorry at all about sharing them, and continue responding as you see fit. I can't speak for Andrew, but I would readily acknowledge both that John Wesley was not a systematic theologian in a proper sense, and that his judgment was often overruled by nonrational factors. Surely many times the Holy Spirit was that nonrational factor, though I am reluctant to, de facto, acknowledge every action of Wesley's to have been under the influence of the Spirit. As you volunteer here, he did indeed make mistakes, some of which he was able to see and admit. For us at this point in history, we have to decide how much contemporary needs to be limited to John Wesley. I am a huge fan of his, but I am also of the mind that what he designed was not sufficient to the task at hand, otherwise it would have maintained. We are currently having a public discourse about what was lacking and needs to be supplemented (like a confession of faith) and what was supplemented and needs to be subtracted. The conversation needs to be had in earnest if the GMC is to be something other than UMC 2.0. I see you participating in that conversation here very well! In a future conversation with Andrew, I anticipate talking about the role of more charismatic thinking in the GMC, and how that might be properly received. I suspect you will join us! In the meantime, consider a series I have begun on my Substack, in which I am proposing a dozen essential facets of Methodism for us to claim and make central to contemporary Methodism: jeffreyrickman.substack.com/p/what-methodism-needs-to-be
I was under the impression Wesley left the pulpit due to never getting invited back after he preached one time in a church. This was after returning from his slightly less than successful Vacation to the Georgia coast.
I'm not a Wesleyan or Methodist but I grew up in a Wesleyan tradition and I have family on both sides of the recent divide in the UMC. Respectfully, I'm convinced that Wesleyan methodism is a beautiful building built on a foundation of sand. It was a spectacle in its heyday during the 18th and 19th centuries when pietistic revivalism was alive and in the air. However, the building has fallen apart and has continued to decay due to the waves of modernism. While I respect conservative methodists and wesleyans for standing with scripture over the spirit of our current culture, I'm baffled as they stand by the ruins, scratching their heads and wondering "where it all went wrong." They may work together to build their tradition back up again but what happens when the next waves come in? I know that John Wesley would be rolling in his grave if he knew what has happened to the UMC today but I can't help but make the comparison between his assurance of salvation coming from his "heart strangely warmed" and my former Evangelical friend who used a similar assertion when he "felt the Holy Spirit telling him that it was okay to live a homosexual lifestyle." Revivalism has historically been either opposed to or indifferent to historical creeds and confessions which have always given the Church a clear and concrete exegesis of scripture. We must believe the Word over our own mystical experiences and personal piety. I see wesleyanism as being contradictory to the principle of "sola scriptura."
One has to wonder where the historic creeds and confessions have gotten Calvinist/Reformed and Lutheran bodies...Sola Scriptura did little to prevent the fracturing of those bodies as well.
@@Bill_Ivins you mean the mainline bodies specifically. There are still confessional Lutheran and reformed churches today that adhere to them and never abandoned the Word. Interestingly enough, every main line denomination in the US went through a revivalistic phase before they embraced modernity. The creeds and confessions got those churches nowhere because those churches abandoned them.
The potential strength of Methodism is learning to balance these forces that have thus far been at odds. Sullivan submits here a corrective that quite possibly answers your concern. If the provision of a confession of faith is allowed and prioritized, then the excesses of experiential subjective faith can be mitigated.
I really detest this congruence of natural grace and prevenient grace. Even if God's prevenient grace enters into us at the moment of conception or before we do NOT have the ability to take the first step to God because God has ALREADY taken the first step with his Prevenient Grace. UMC and later Methodism is a miasma of fuzzy thinking. My Grandpa was an EUB minister, the 62 catechism was not highly regarded - it was seen (in our family at least,) as a step toward unity with the UMC which ever since has sought to dilute the message, in my opinion. I had a terrible time with pastors and instructors who thought the doctrinal writings were just there "as history." That is a total misunderstanding of what "doctrine" means. My DS once asked who my "informing theologian" was. I responded it was probably John Wesley because I find I use his sermons more than anything else. He said, "Don't you think that we have learned a lot since John Wesley." to which I replied, "Sir, I read the paper this morning and in my understanding it does not seem that humanity has learned anything since Moses gave us the Ten Commandments. We are still stealing, committing adultery, disrespecting parents, and raising idols (like football and golf,) and placing them higher than our worship of God." We did not really get along after than. When I pissed off the Bishop by saying we were not helping young pastors with families enough - that they needed a "family allowance" like the US Army gave privates so they can survive. Older pastors don't have kids or teens at home they don't need the money as much as young families. Wesley lived on the same amount throughout his career, as he got more money he just gave more to the poor." And this, I think, is the phrase that put me on the Bishop's naughty list (it was a speech or comment on the floor at Annual Conference) and got me moved to a "part time" church. "It is a sorry state of affairs when the United States Army takes better care of its people than the United Methodist Church." It has since got worse and the UMC is awash with heresy and error. I have been watching the Global Methodists with some interest.
Thank you for your interesting reply! I have actually meet a person who grew up EUB and she was of the same opinion as you! So not only did the LEADERSHIP of the EUB produce a new and water down Confession in the 1960s (betraying their own heritage), they seemed to have acted against the will of their own constituency by merging with the Methodists who had also already betrayed their own theological heritage by that time. Regrettably, both of our denominations in the 1960s were being ran by people in leadership position who were substantially to the left of everyone else.
Thank you for your comments. We need a continually growing need to abide in the vine. That is not done by turning full bore away from repentance, obedience, and holiness. Return. The Lord seeks us.
I hate to mention this, but this guy is teaching soft Calvinistic theology. Which seems obvious since he attends and is bathed in baptist education. The term total depravity is the first point in the TULIP theology. Next according to him God gives differing amounts of grace to people based on their societal and background grouping,,, and might give very little grace to some (the pagans) or lots to others,,, this is the U in tulip,,, unconditional election orrrr rejection by the amount of grace given or held back by God and only by Gods chosen will to the select few who deserve it and only 'WHEN' they deserve it.-------------- and Methodists are not reformed no matter how hard he tries to assert we are---------- and now Wesley is wrong in his abridgment of the articles and the theology and order of the Anglican is also wrong,,, because HISTORY -----------------6 Methodists do NOT BELIEVE penal substitutional atonement,,satisfaction ,,, they do believe in Governmental enough atonement which is the antithesis of PSA// satisfaction theory.---------9-3 Methodists do not believe Christ is present ONLY in a spiritual manner received by faith,,,, no no no,,,, When the Pastor (whoever) prays pour out your Holy Spirit on these gifts of Bread and Wine and make them to be THE BODY AND BLOOD. This doesn't rely on the faith of the receiver,,,, because the sacrament has power in itself given by God,,, otherwise why would we take the consecrated elements with us to the world of people /shutins/nursing homes. I also know former atheists that partook of a Methodist communion and something changed in them. This change ate at their souls,,, and one is now a GMC Elder and pastor of two churches. Peace and love to you all,,, I Got to go.
I have read through John Wesley’s sermons and Notes on the NT. He definitely preached depravity and substitutionary atonement. He also denied transsubstantiation and taught instead the real presence of Christ. Calvinists and Arminians are not as far apart as many think.
Hello, Thank you for your reply, however, I would have to disagree. I would strongly encourage you to read primary source materials and not base your understanding of Methodism by what is currently popular today Post-Liberal corruption. Also I strongly encourage you to examine the merit of the argument and not simply dismiss me because of my Baptist education. Especially since I had a Baptist professor who was a four point Arminian! Also, not all Baptists are Calvinists. In fact, Jerry Falwell, the founder of the school I currently attend, denounced Calvinism as heresy! Also, see my thesis paper in the show notes. I did my whole post-grad thesis paper on Simon Episcopius! (Also I am a graduate from Asbury by the way) Nathan Bangs defends Total Depravity against the New England Calvinist (of all people) who were being too soft upon it! John William Fletcher affirmed that God gives grace to all but unequally. Anglicans cannot even agree if they are Arminians or Calvinists, Protestants or not. This is because of historical reasons (namely their political origin with King Henry VIII). I agree with our 25 Articles and want to preserve them. However, my acknowledgement of their deficiency (namely they lack our Wesleyan distinctives) has been acknowledged by many including Bishop Thomas Coke, Joseph Benson, Adam Clarke and Thomas C. Oden. Methodist do believe in Penal Substitution. See Richard Watson's writings and how he corrects some of the errors of Hugo Grotius, while keeping what is good about the Governmental theory. [Also note that Hugo Grotius, the father of the Governmental Theory, was himself a Dutch Reformed theologian (prior to his expulsion by the Synod of Dort) and he affirmed Total Depravity]. As Bishop John J. Tigert points out, Miley's view on the Governmental theory were not representative of Southern Methodism, also see Thomas O. Summers on this topic matter. Finally, if you read our 25 Articles you will see that we Methodist do in fact affirm a spiritual presence (see Article XVIII). I also challenge you to read Samuel Wesley Sr., the supposed High Churchman, who strongly rejected the idea that the bread and wine changed substance. Again, I strongly recommend that you read primary source literature by Methodist theologians as supposed to doing no research at all.
Personally I don't recognize anybody's doctrine or anybody's religion as they never provide evidence for their originator or origin story and without that anyone can assert anything and then sincerely speculate on the contents within an "empty box".
What a fine studious young man. We can learn a lot from his efforts to be fully informed.
I'm an LCMS lutheran. I was glad to learn you guys believe in innerancy and total depravity as well, I will keep your church in my prayers.
Whooo! I am going to have to listen to this again. That’s good as it shows there are areas in which I need educating.
Now is the time to return to our first love, Jesus!
Stay strong folks! Satan may be smiling but God The Almighty ALWAYS has a remnant and He wins.
Be strong and courageous and do not be discouraged.
Live for Jesus!
I like the way Andrew defines and explains "Total Depravity" around the 30:00 mark. Equal to that, I like how Jeffrey asks good questions to get specific aspects out for our understanding. Well done gentlemen!
This is great! 100% in on having a confession!!!!
Loved this presentation by such a knowledgeable young man. I hope I hear more from him.
Very good. Have this man on again.
I thoroughly enjoy listening to discussions of theology, especially discussions such as these which are in-depth and clear.
I love listening to this conversation. So much I don't know! But since I am attending a conservative Presbyterian at the moment and don't really understand predestination yet (maybe never), I would really like to understand these theological ideas. Thank you!
I wouldn't describe it as "Creeping" - It's been galloping at full throttle and plowing full steam into the remnants of Christianity.
As a Protestant Anglican, I'd love to see Methodists reembrace the Methodist Articles of Religion as they have been traditionally understood (before liberalism).
Andrew is right to trace this line. A common accusation against Wesleyans who hold a high view of Scripture is that "that view is a Calvinistic point of view." It is not. Wesley stands apart from the low-view of Scripture Wesleyanism of today. And now we have the EUB history through Andrew's research.
No less than the doctrines of the Trinity, Atonement, Deity of Christ, etc. the doctrine of the full inspiration of Scripture belongs to and is at home in all branches of the Church. God has left us a trustworthy witness in the Holy Scriptures.
Actually, Arminianism IS a form of Calvinism known as "Bezan Calvinism". Arminius was fully Reformed, and agreed with total depravity and perseverance of the saints and even unconditional election and irresistable grace. He disagreed with Calvin on how those things worked, but he always affirmed that he was within the Reformed camp. As a Baptist historian, I deal with this all the time, as I am what is now called a "provisionist". The Calvinists call us Arminian and the Arminians call us Calvinist. We are neither. We are also accused of being "semi pelagian", which really is something that never existed, as Pelagius never actually taught what Augustine accussed him of teaching, and Pelagius was actually found innocent of all charges twice. At Augustine's continued insistence and lies, Pelagius was finally condemned.
Although we have always believed what we now believe, our terminology has changed, not our theology. We no longer use the term "total depravity" or "perseverance of the saints" We do NOT believe we are born guilty of Adam's sin, but do suffer from the consequences. We would say its like a child born with defects because its mother drank while pregnant. The child is not guilty of the mothers actions, but suffers the consequences of them. The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, teaches that even infants are worthy of damnation to hell, and they believe most infants who die go to hell, unless they are "elect". Not every Calvinist believes this, but if they dont, they arent consistent with their theology. At some point, we actually become sinners by choice. Also, Calvinism teaches you cannot know for certain if youre among the elect until after death, because you may stop short of "persevering" at any time. So in essence, Calvinism and Arminianism has issues when it comes to assurance of salvation. We are content to say that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin when the gospel is preached, not requiring "prevenient grace" in the classical understanding of it.. From our pov, prevenient grace says God actually "saves you" to overcome depravity, at which point you may choose to go back into a lost state.
To my understanding, Whitefield and Wesley agreed on most points, but differed on the atonement and thus God's love for every person.
This is a really helpful comment. Would you please follow up with me by emailing some resources to follow up with and substantiate your arguments here? I'm at plainspokenpod@gmail.com
@@plainspokenpod just sent you an email
@@caman171 Thank you for your comment. Yes it is true that Arminius was taught by Theodore Beza, and Arminius himself was a ordained minister in good standing within the Reformed Church, however Arminius did not teach unconditional election or irresistible grace. (perhaps he believed this earlier in his life and then later changed his views, but Arminius scholars are not in agreement on this ). Concerning Original Guilt, the Early Dutch Arminians uniformly rejected such a notion. 19th century Methodists were divided upon it. Some Methodists believed in it but thought it was universally removed by Prevenient Grace, other Methodist simply rejected that we inherited Adam's guilt to begin with.
My understanding of "Provisionism" or "Traditional Baptist" theology is that it is neither Arminian nor Calvinistic but a separate category. As I mentioned briefly in the video, Pelagius technically taught salvation by grace through faith, its just that he immediately turned around and radically re-defined what that meant and ended with salvation by works. Thus, I would see Augustine and Jerome's polemics against him to be more or less accurate.
@@sullivan1858 sorry I keep trying to reply, but youtube keeps deleting. try watching the video by an oxford scholar on Pelagius called "was Pelagius really a Pelagian"
Thanks!
Thank YOU!
I LOVE MY BIBLICAL METHODIST BROTHERS!!! As a Baptist, and student of Baptist history, it grieves me that we once had such cooperation between us, that went away because the UMC drifted away from truth. The Baptist and Methodist churches around where I live, used to all share Sunday School in what was called a Sunday School Union.. Most churches back in the late 1800's only met twice a month for preaching, but the SSU met every week.
Provisionist Baptists would agree with the conclusion of a preventing grace, but not agree that the fall of Adam brought about total corruption. However, the outcome of bother our perspectives would agree that we are able to respond to saving grace by faith, and that ALL are invited to salvation.
There are some biblical Methodists left, and I believe we will grow in our proportion of American Methodism! I have a hard time believing there was ever a time when many Methodists and Baptists were able to meet in peaceful fellowship that regularly. I wonder if yours was an exceptional setting, or if perhaps it was once more common than I had understood. I know that today I regularly experience great and deep fellowship with Baptist brothers and sisters, but that this is often seen uncharitably by many Methodists. Even biblical ones! May the future be different. Or rather, may it again look like the portrait you briefly painted here!
@@plainspokenpod Ah brother you need to read more history! The Baptists invited Methodist ministers to their revival in the Georgia Association in 1793. The revivals in Kentucky had Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian preachers. Salem Methodist Campground close to me has always had Baptist preachers along with Methodist. One of my pastors growing up always said he was as "ecumenical" as you can get because he got saved hearing a Methodist preacher at a Presbyterian campground, and joined the Baptist church right there in the tabernacle. I dont think it was as rare as youve been led to believe. My parents ran a Baptist mission in a very low income area for years, and the Methodist church in Conyers Ga gave more money to the mission than the Baptists did, even tho it was a Baptist mission church. The Methodists always used the baptistry of First Baptist of Conyers when someone requested immersion,.There are many instances where Frances Asbury preached in Baptist churches. In fact Asbury was converted by Baptist preacher David Taylor. In Georgia, it was quite common for Baptists and Methodists to have joint revivals. A few years ago I had Methodist MINISTER who laughed at me because I declined to have a beer. He said "You Baptists are so narrow minded". I smiled and said "Do YOU realize that it was the Methodists who started the temperance movement and invented welchs grape juice in order to avoid wine in communion? We Baptists merely hopped on board." He was clueless and had no idea. The breach between Baptists and Methodists started when the UMC formed.
@@caman171 Interesting, perhaps a future interview on plainspokenpod can be a dialogue/panel discussion between Global Methodists, American Holiness, Free-Will Baptists, and Provisionists. See where we agree and disagree?
I wasn't aware of David Taylor, but I have heard of a Dan Taylor, an early British Methodist turned General Baptist. He left Methodism because he thought John Wesley was too much of an authoritarian. Having left Methodism and rejecting an Episcopal form of government, he would later reject infant baptism as well and became a General Baptist. If memory serves me correct, his Methodist heritage remained in his understanding of sanctification. Thus, he stands in a middle ground between Wesleyan Methodism and General Baptist. However, Ill end with this note of warning: A Methodist without an episcopacy and infant baptism is essentially just a free-will Baptist, as the Rev. Dan Taylor demonstrates....
@@plainspokenpod For several years our small Methodist and Baptist churches, which are within walking distance, shared a summer Vacation Bible School. We also shared social youth group activities and 5th Sunday night joint musical services. As a child, I remember attending each other's revivals, I think, at the time, we all saw each other as fellow Christians of good will who had a slightly different point of emphasis. I grew up in the Baptist church where there were lots of revivals about salvation and the danger of Hell and attended youth at the Methodist Church where there seemed to be an emphasis on love and C.S. Lewis. I married a Methodist, raised my children there and was a member for 50 years. Now, one son's family attends a conservative Presbyterian church in Charlotte, NC, one son's family attends Presbyterian USA in Virginia, more liberal, and my daughter's family attends an independent disaffiliated Methodist Church in coastal Georgia. There are no Global UM churches within driving distance for me, so I am attending a conservative Presbyterian. There are some independent disaffiliated Methodist churches nearby, but I would rather be part of a larger connectional, missionary church. I hope some of them will join the Global MC eventually.
To cut to the chase: if these are major concerns to you, then ask if the GMC will affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). If they say, “No” then you will probably be disappointed.
Soooo many books added to the library... trying to get through them all!
I cracked up as I thought the same thing. No easy reading there. My stacks of books are approaching hoarder stage. 😂
Once I knock out a few more on holiness I will need to tap into those listed in the show notes.
We have to stand firmly behind Christ.
@@joer5627 My family is a book hording family.. and as the older generations have aged, they realized I would take their books too... my daughter just brought home 20 books from school since they are remodeling and the library said they could take all they could fit in their backpacks... it continues!
I'm from Gonzales County Texas too. I don't know him or his family though.
What a small world we live in!
I like Andrew, btw.
Every theology has tendencies towards error and surrendering to the spirit of the age. Concern for the vulnerabilities of Methodism are fair, but we must remember that New England was once dominated by Calvinist thought.
Great video! I'm gonna have to try and wrangle one or both of you onto my channel at some point.
OK, sorry all but I need to mention this. The Wesleyan Movement was not a systematic doctrine. It had strong elements of Charism. Wesley seemed on several occasions to bow to the will of the Spirit acknowledging that God was doing things that he might not have done himself. His emphasis on if preachers actually called by the spirit and granting that call even if they were a woman. He was an Anglican with solid ideas. But he also acknowledged that he had made errors. I remember the story of when his preachers thought Wesley should be the one to "street preach" to the masses and Wesley preferred the pulpit. He finally agreed to drawing lots and the lot fell to him. He accepted this as being "drafted" by God. Part of the failing of modern Methodism is it doesn't accept the work of the Spirit as over and above rational thought. I remember arguing this point with a pastor, after a lengthy explanation of how we need to make more room for the Spirit and intuition. When I got done he said "That's a very rational argument." I am what I am. As I said to him if people took my sermons about trusting the Spirit of God out of the context of the radical materialistic society in which I live they would make wrong assumptions about what I was saying. This balance of being able to be led by the Spirit of God where God leads is part of the non-doctrinal nature of Methodism. however, we left the Spriti of God far behind and have become overly rational, IMHO. Having said that. Andrew is correct. The Methodist way of Doctrinal sermons is not enough. History has proven that. It allowed people to go skipping off into error. (the UMC continues to magnificently compound and wallow in its errors even today)..its almost like there is something....original sin? Total depravity? that leads us into error if we are not very very careful. Sorry, I had to write. Its something I have strong feelings and thoughts on. Obviously, if you don't want to hear it you probably haven't read this far.
I have enjoyed reading through your thoughts on the conversation we had here! Don't be sorry at all about sharing them, and continue responding as you see fit. I can't speak for Andrew, but I would readily acknowledge both that John Wesley was not a systematic theologian in a proper sense, and that his judgment was often overruled by nonrational factors. Surely many times the Holy Spirit was that nonrational factor, though I am reluctant to, de facto, acknowledge every action of Wesley's to have been under the influence of the Spirit. As you volunteer here, he did indeed make mistakes, some of which he was able to see and admit.
For us at this point in history, we have to decide how much contemporary needs to be limited to John Wesley. I am a huge fan of his, but I am also of the mind that what he designed was not sufficient to the task at hand, otherwise it would have maintained. We are currently having a public discourse about what was lacking and needs to be supplemented (like a confession of faith) and what was supplemented and needs to be subtracted. The conversation needs to be had in earnest if the GMC is to be something other than UMC 2.0. I see you participating in that conversation here very well!
In a future conversation with Andrew, I anticipate talking about the role of more charismatic thinking in the GMC, and how that might be properly received. I suspect you will join us! In the meantime, consider a series I have begun on my Substack, in which I am proposing a dozen essential facets of Methodism for us to claim and make central to contemporary Methodism: jeffreyrickman.substack.com/p/what-methodism-needs-to-be
I was under the impression Wesley left the pulpit due to never getting invited back after he preached one time in a church. This was after returning from his slightly less than successful Vacation to the Georgia coast.
I'm not a Wesleyan or Methodist but I grew up in a Wesleyan tradition and I have family on both sides of the recent divide in the UMC. Respectfully, I'm convinced that Wesleyan methodism is a beautiful building built on a foundation of sand. It was a spectacle in its heyday during the 18th and 19th centuries when pietistic revivalism was alive and in the air. However, the building has fallen apart and has continued to decay due to the waves of modernism. While I respect conservative methodists and wesleyans for standing with scripture over the spirit of our current culture, I'm baffled as they stand by the ruins, scratching their heads and wondering "where it all went wrong." They may work together to build their tradition back up again but what happens when the next waves come in? I know that John Wesley would be rolling in his grave if he knew what has happened to the UMC today but I can't help but make the comparison between his assurance of salvation coming from his "heart strangely warmed" and my former Evangelical friend who used a similar assertion when he "felt the Holy Spirit telling him that it was okay to live a homosexual lifestyle." Revivalism has historically been either opposed to or indifferent to historical creeds and confessions which have always given the Church a clear and concrete exegesis of scripture. We must believe the Word over our own mystical experiences and personal piety. I see wesleyanism as being contradictory to the principle of "sola scriptura."
One has to wonder where the historic creeds and confessions have gotten Calvinist/Reformed and Lutheran bodies...Sola Scriptura did little to prevent the fracturing of those bodies as well.
@@Bill_Ivins you mean the mainline bodies specifically. There are still confessional Lutheran and reformed churches today that adhere to them and never abandoned the Word. Interestingly enough, every main line denomination in the US went through a revivalistic phase before they embraced modernity. The creeds and confessions got those churches nowhere because those churches abandoned them.
The potential strength of Methodism is learning to balance these forces that have thus far been at odds. Sullivan submits here a corrective that quite possibly answers your concern. If the provision of a confession of faith is allowed and prioritized, then the excesses of experiential subjective faith can be mitigated.
Creeping heresy? It's been there all along.
I really detest this congruence of natural grace and prevenient grace. Even if God's prevenient grace enters into us at the moment of conception or before we do NOT have the ability to take the first step to God because God has ALREADY taken the first step with his Prevenient Grace. UMC and later Methodism is a miasma of fuzzy thinking. My Grandpa was an EUB minister, the 62 catechism was not highly regarded - it was seen (in our family at least,) as a step toward unity with the UMC which ever since has sought to dilute the message, in my opinion. I had a terrible time with pastors and instructors who thought the doctrinal writings were just there "as history." That is a total misunderstanding of what "doctrine" means. My DS once asked who my "informing theologian" was. I responded it was probably John Wesley because I find I use his sermons more than anything else. He said, "Don't you think that we have learned a lot since John Wesley." to which I replied, "Sir, I read the paper this morning and in my understanding it does not seem that humanity has learned anything since Moses gave us the Ten Commandments. We are still stealing, committing adultery, disrespecting parents, and raising idols (like football and golf,) and placing them higher than our worship of God." We did not really get along after than. When I pissed off the Bishop by saying we were not helping young pastors with families enough - that they needed a "family allowance" like the US Army gave privates so they can survive. Older pastors don't have kids or teens at home they don't need the money as much as young families. Wesley lived on the same amount throughout his career, as he got more money he just gave more to the poor." And this, I think, is the phrase that put me on the Bishop's naughty list (it was a speech or comment on the floor at Annual Conference) and got me moved to a "part time" church. "It is a sorry state of affairs when the United States Army takes better care of its people than the United Methodist Church." It has since got worse and the UMC is awash with heresy and error. I have been watching the Global Methodists with some interest.
Thank you for your interesting reply! I have actually meet a person who grew up EUB and she was of the same opinion as you! So not only did the LEADERSHIP of the EUB produce a new and water down Confession in the 1960s (betraying their own heritage), they seemed to have acted against the will of their own constituency by merging with the Methodists who had also already betrayed their own theological heritage by that time. Regrettably, both of our denominations in the 1960s were being ran by people in leadership position who were substantially to the left of everyone else.
Thank you for your comments. We need a continually growing need to abide in the vine. That is not done by turning full bore away from repentance, obedience, and holiness.
Return. The Lord seeks us.
When he was being introduced I thought you were going to ask his pronouns! 😂
I hate to mention this, but this guy is teaching soft Calvinistic theology. Which seems obvious since he attends and is bathed in baptist education. The term total depravity is the first point in the TULIP theology. Next according to him God gives differing amounts of grace to people based on their societal and background grouping,,, and might give very little grace to some (the pagans) or lots to others,,, this is the U in tulip,,, unconditional election orrrr rejection by the amount of grace given or held back by God and only by Gods chosen will to the select few who deserve it and only 'WHEN' they deserve it.-------------- and Methodists are not reformed no matter how hard he tries to assert we are---------- and now Wesley is wrong in his abridgment of the articles and the theology and order of the Anglican is also wrong,,, because HISTORY -----------------6 Methodists do NOT BELIEVE penal substitutional atonement,,satisfaction ,,, they do believe in Governmental enough atonement which is the antithesis of PSA// satisfaction theory.---------9-3 Methodists do not believe Christ is present ONLY in a spiritual manner received by faith,,,, no no no,,,, When the Pastor (whoever) prays pour out your Holy Spirit on these gifts of Bread and Wine and make them to be THE BODY AND BLOOD. This doesn't rely on the faith of the receiver,,,, because the sacrament has power in itself given by God,,, otherwise why would we take the consecrated elements with us to the world of people /shutins/nursing homes. I also know former atheists that partook of a Methodist communion and something changed in them. This change ate at their souls,,, and one is now a GMC Elder and pastor of two churches. Peace and love to you all,,, I Got to go.
I have read through John Wesley’s sermons and Notes on the NT. He definitely preached depravity and substitutionary atonement. He also denied transsubstantiation and taught instead the real presence of Christ. Calvinists and Arminians are not as far apart as many think.
Hello, Thank you for your reply, however, I would have to disagree. I would strongly encourage you to read primary source materials and not base your understanding of Methodism by what is currently popular today Post-Liberal corruption. Also I strongly encourage you to examine the merit of the argument and not simply dismiss me because of my Baptist education. Especially since I had a Baptist professor who was a four point Arminian! Also, not all Baptists are Calvinists. In fact, Jerry Falwell, the founder of the school I currently attend, denounced Calvinism as heresy! Also, see my thesis paper in the show notes. I did my whole post-grad thesis paper on Simon Episcopius! (Also I am a graduate from Asbury by the way)
Nathan Bangs defends Total Depravity against the New England Calvinist (of all people) who were being too soft upon it! John William Fletcher affirmed that God gives grace to all but unequally. Anglicans cannot even agree if they are Arminians or Calvinists, Protestants or not. This is because of historical reasons (namely their political origin with King Henry VIII). I agree with our 25 Articles and want to preserve them. However, my acknowledgement of their deficiency (namely they lack our Wesleyan distinctives) has been acknowledged by many including Bishop Thomas Coke, Joseph Benson, Adam Clarke and Thomas C. Oden. Methodist do believe in Penal Substitution. See Richard Watson's writings and how he corrects some of the errors of Hugo Grotius, while keeping what is good about the Governmental theory. [Also note that Hugo Grotius, the father of the Governmental Theory, was himself a Dutch Reformed theologian (prior to his expulsion by the Synod of Dort) and he affirmed Total Depravity]. As Bishop John J. Tigert points out, Miley's view on the Governmental theory were not representative of Southern Methodism, also see Thomas O. Summers on this topic matter. Finally, if you read our 25 Articles you will see that we Methodist do in fact affirm a spiritual presence (see Article XVIII). I also challenge you to read Samuel Wesley Sr., the supposed High Churchman, who strongly rejected the idea that the bread and wine changed substance.
Again, I strongly recommend that you read primary source literature by Methodist theologians as supposed to doing no research at all.
What's goin on with the Methodist Church will soon pass.
It will cause the domino effect with other churches.
Do Global Methodists really want to purify Methodism? (Tongue in cheek!)
Personally I don't recognize anybody's doctrine or anybody's religion as they never provide evidence for their originator or origin story and without that anyone can assert anything and then sincerely speculate on the contents within an "empty box".
Thanks!
Thank YOU!