“From our point of view we can express ourselves thus: the more we are enlightened and informed about the works of God, the more we shall be disposed to find that they are excellent and satisfactory in every way we could hope” (Gottfried Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics)

My Comments

William Daniel Hello to all!

Alister does not have the flu after all, just a stomach bug. We’ve knick-named him “Fire-Bottom.”

Derek,

Yes, I remember your post. If I am correct, you composed that when you had a Creationist present a series at Cornerstone. Yes, I’ll admit there are issues with YEC. There are issues with all things supernatural from a naturalistic worldview. A couple of examples:

1. “Dead people stay dead.” (David Hume)
2. Virgins don’t give birth.

Depending on one’s persuation a few years ago “Science” proved the following:

1. Dads are unnecessary for child development.
2. Divorce holds no ill effects upon children and can actually be good for children.
3. Homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

I have had two main concerns in this discussion:

1. Debate process.
2. The assumption that science and religion are completely isolated in their spheres of concern with little to no overlap. (This is the opinion of Stephen J. Gould.)

Concerning #2: Science and Religion actually overlap quite a bit. Science is a mixture of a priori assumptions and empirical testing. Religion is similar. The overlap of Science and Religion is known as Metaphysics, and despite the empirical data in both realms, Metaphysics is often laden with political ideology. This is problem for “both sides of the aisle.” My point here is that Science is not empirically “clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.” And Religion is not without empirical observation.

Concerning #1: Aaron, you said the following: “I suppose sin could slow down the speed of light, but do you really believe this is what happened?” (15th post, 4th paragraph). I merely paraphrased you.

I’m not offended by what you said. My point in bringing this up was to illustrate what I call the logical plurality fallacy. I didn’t think you were attacking them as people. The logical plurality fallacy (I don’t know if this officially or technically exists as such) is the grown up version of “Awe, Come on Ma! Everybody’s doing it!”

Here’s my attempt to explain it. I use attack in a debate tones, not emotional tones. In the grown up version there are multiple options x,y & z. Person “a” hold to “x.” Person “b” holds to “z.” In the debate x, y & z are all within the realm of possibility. Person “b” attacks the position of Person “a” …

by saying that there are a myriad of options available, why be so dogmatic. You should consider “z.” It is THE correct answer.

The attack here is not so much on the content. The attack is a rhetorical slight of hand, which does nothing to actually attack the content of Person “a” or defend the content of Person “b.” It is simply diversionary. Person “b” attacks person “a” for not being open to other options. The attack is two pronged: *on the fact that person “a” has made a choice and **that person “a” has chosen “x.” The underlying assumption that goes unsaid verbally, but is communicated loudly is that by choosing “x” person “a” is dogmatic, if not ill-informed. The heart of the fallacy lies in the fact that while person “b” makes this attack, he has in fact done the same thing as person “a.” (Again, that is if x, y, & z are all within the realm of possibility for the debate.)

The problem is that most of us do this sort of thing without realizing it. And, yes, Aaron, I’ll be the first to confess that many YEC’s do cross the line in calling OEC’s heretics. Again, my problem has never been the debate itself, simply this particular process. Personally, I’m very sympathetic to OEC … and to YEC. I guess you can call me agnostic on this issue.

On to other things. I’m going to respond to a couple of your points. You’ll know when I’m quoting you by

*”this method.”

So, here goes.

*”Do you find a Muslim quoting the Koran as a valid reason to hold their particular beliefs? Of course not!”

Yes, I have. Last night I saw a debate where the cleric defended his points by appealing to God. There might not have been chapter and verse cited, but the points are nonetheless appeals to revelation as primary justification to the “unbeliever” for the opinions held.

*”I don’t see any need to make anything of it. Animals are not moral agents and are therefore incapable of making moral or immoral choices. Personally, it doesn’t bother me if animals died before sin. I don’t see a problem scripturally with animal death before sin. I think it only becomes a dilemna when our understanding of original creation being “good” means that there was no death of any kind. If that was the case then why is plant death acceptable in a “good” creation but animal death is not?”

Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam’s sin. By world Paul means more than a future likelihood or greater propensity of human sin. “The whole creation waits with eager longing…” At least from Paul’s view the whole creation was put under a curse. In the actually genesis story the ground is cursed. The snake is cursed. The implication is that the whole creation is thus under a curse. Adam makes a garment of fig leaves, but God makes a garmet of skin. The plant doesn’t have to die for leaves to be extracted. An animal or human being does for skin to be extracted. God promised Adam death would result from sin. The weight of the drama tips the scales of awe in this story in on how unnatural death was to the Garden. From that moment on animal sacrifice is a regular feature in the Scriptures as worship. With Jesus’s death on the cross, animal sacrifices are no longer needed because the ultimate sacrifice has been paid. While Jesus did not exact a total redemption of Creation in His first Advent (a major reason Jews reject Jesus today), He began the process, which will culminate upon His Second Advent. This is called the “Now and Not Yet.” We can be forgiven “now,” but we don’t experience a revocation of death “yet.” The “Now and Not Yet” is of course wider than this particular issue, but it certainly includes it.

*”I believe sin did have an effect on many things, particularly man’s behavior and sinful nature. I believe the fall was a moral one though. This we can clearly observe. Man’s moral choices have effects on the physical world but I don’t see any good reason to believe that sin caused changes in physical constants. While we may think of some physical things such as friction as a bad thing, I am pretty sure it existed before sin entered the world. Just imagine trying to walk without friction. It would be impossible.”

Okay, let me take this from the bottom. I believe friction is a good thing. But whether I believe it to be a good or bad thing, I’m not that sure that I can say what “perfect” creation would have looked like. My point is that it–all of it–is only effected by Sin; I just don’t know to what degree. I looking forward to finding out in the Hereafter, as I know you are too. One immediate effect was the ground would no longer simply give it’s fruit up for Adam. It would be filled with weeds, requiring painful toil. Did the ground sin? Yet it was cursed because of Adam’s sin. You might say that it was cursed for Adam, but it was nonetheless cursed. I have other examples but not much space left, nor much of your time left. I certainly believe the Fall was moral—with implications far beyond the legal infraction of Adam.

*”In considering all of these issues I realized I had a lot of notions and ideas in my theology that I couldn’t really support or give a good defense or reason for. They were simply things I had been taught before and just took for Truth without ever questioning them. I think this is one problem a lot of non-Christians have with many Christians. I think most Christians can not give a good defense of their beliefs or show why they believe what they believe. Just ask some of the folks in your church why they believe the Bible is true and see what kind of answers you get.”

Bravo!!! I would offer a couple of responses:

1. Just because Phil can’t offer iron-clad rationale for why Porn is bad, doesn’t NECESSARILY (emphasis, not yelling) negate Phil’s decision to opt out of the magazine rack behind the counter at the Jiffy Mart. Of course over time I hope that Phil will develop his thinking, because doing so will make it less likely Phil will begin a porn habit.

The point is that the lack of a sophisticated apologetic does not prove or disprove a person’s point. A corolary to this is that having a sophisticated apologetic, while my opponent does not, does not NECESSARILY demonstrate the veracity of my point.

2. Related to the above on some things I don’t care if people can articulate the “why.” I’m just glad they believe them and do them.

*stopping at stop signs
*stopping at red lights

I’m not trying to be cute (I don’t have to try … I am … my daughters tell me so … lol) but I think the drive to have other people “think” can actually be an emotional cover-up for “I wish people would think like me.”

3. You’re wanting Truth questioned. By whom? How far? To what extent? In wanting Truth questioned are you prepared for the consequences for any agnoticism to follow? Here are a couple of points I’ve been accused of not questioning Truth on:

*Pre-marital sex
*Drug use
*Homosexual behavior (when I was 8 or 9 a kid that accused me of not “thinking” by not acquiessing to him in this area).

Perhaps these are absurd. The overall point remains, though. I’m not sure that we’ve thought through the ramefications of asking people to “think,” which is usually euphamistic for demanding people give up Tradition.

3. I certainly wish to see believers develop a more robust worldview and ability to lovingly articulate it. I get very frustrated at the copout that Christianity is grounded in “faith” not “reason.” Unfortunately, I’ve nearly come to believe that in our day Postmodernism will carry the hearts and minds of our people. Such that our people will wash their minds down the toilet and wipe their bottoms with their hearts. Sorry for the imagery, but I hope you can apprehend that both I am passionate about this issue and that on this point we are one.

4. Since half of the church I currently attend consists of the more conservative faculty and staff from both Asbury University and Asbury Seminary, I doubt giving reasons for faith is much of an issue. My center-left friends make the same point of traditional-conservative folks, but usually cease debating me after two volleys on a variety of issues on their own accord. But I willingly concede your overall point.

Alrighty, thanks for praying for Alister. He does seem to be somewhat better. Please let me know when you’ll be starting up your own TV ministry now.

Grace and Peace,

William

Text: Romans 10:5-8

Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That
the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this
wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into
heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up
Christ again from the dead.)

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy
mouth, and in thy heart: That is the word of faith,
which we preach.

In this sermon Wesley seeks to distinguish between the righteousness by the Law and righteousness by faith; between “do this and live” and “believe in Jesus and live.” It is divided into three parts.

Part One distinquishes righteousness by Law as found in the Covenant of Works and righteousness by faith or believing in Jesus. The CW was given to Adam in his perfection before the Law. Wesley claims the Jews were seeking to live by this in their human sin nature and frailty. In the righteousness by faith it is in Jesus that we find forgiveness for our sins and transformation of our frailties: “What it (righteousness by faith in Jesus) requires would be impossible; but not to man assisted by the Spirit of God” (I.8)

Part Two discusses the folly of trusting in self-righteousness or the Covenant of Works and the wisdom of trusting in righteousness by faith. As seen in the Part One, Wesley teaches that the CW was given to man in Paradise before the Fall in his perfection. The C W was “never designed for the recovery of the favour (sic) and life of God once lost, but only for the continuance and increase thereof, till is should be complete in life everlasting” (II.1). Human strength is the measure of ability to keep the Law—the whole of it—and if in one place there is failure then the whole is destroyed. It is in Jesus that we are both forgiven and given His righteousness and equipped for obedience to God.

Part Three encourages those in his day, who, not unlike many in our own day, desire to clean themselves up before coming to Jesus in faith. Such a mood is in keeping with self-made righteousness and misses the righteousness of faith entirely. He gives us four negative admonishments:

• Do not say I must perform ­X, Y & Z before coming to Jesus
• Do not say I am not good enough
• Do not say I am not contrite enough
• Do not say I must live life before coming to Jesus (otherwise He might come and you will not be ready)

His concluding sentence captures both his and my evangelistic heart:

“Now, at this instant, in the present moment, and in thy present state, sinner as thou art, just as thou art, believe the gospel; and ‘I will be merciful unto thy unrighteousness, and thy iniquities will I remember no more’” (III.6).

I would offer an observation that we good evangelicals would do well to head. It is indeed in vogue to simplify the difference between Jewish and Christian theology as the difference between righteousness by works and righteousness by faith. Unfortunately, this amounts to a straw man. The text at hand from Romans 10 Paul pulls from Deuteronomy 30. Keep in mind that by the time of Deuteronomy 30 the Jews has already become the people of God. Thus Moses’s admonition to find life through the ways of God (His Torah) was given not as a means for acquiring the favor of God, but rather of simply unraveling it in the believer’s heart. This is the same admonition Paul delivers to the Philippians believers to work out their Salvation “with fear and trembling” (2:12; ESV).

I offer this admonition to us, lest we use the grace of God as license for our own whimsical pleasures. As evangelicals, we are serious not only about receiving Salvation as a free gift from God, based on faith. We are also serious about the ways of God as found in His revealed Word. Nevertheless, Wesley’s sermon is a very helpful anchor in our turbulent postmodern times that truly the source of our life, as true believers, is not our own strength or goodness. It is solely in Jesus and His righteousness.

“And as for thee, thou art not good at all: There dwelleth in thee no good thing. And thou never wilt be, till thou believe in Jesus (III.2; italics mine).

Thus says the LORD:

“Cursed is the man who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength,
whose heart turns away from the LORD.
He is like a shrub in the desert,
and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched placed of the wilderness,
in an uninhabited salt land.

“Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose trust is the LORD.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”

“The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick (or wicked);
who can understand it?

“I the LORD search the heart
and test the mind,
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds”
(Jeremiah 17:5-10; ESV)

Notice that in the first stanza this man is cursed. The man is one who “turns away from the LORD.” Thus, he is one who was once with the LORD. This man is consigned to dwell in Death Valley (or the Dead Sea–”an uninhabited salt land”).

Now notice the man in the second stanza. He is like one planted by ever-flowing water. Yet, the heat and drought still come. This man bears fruit, as if he were planted in ideal conditions, though he may be surrounded by conditions similar in feel to the man in the first stanza.

It could be said that once the cursed dwell in Death Valley, it is no longer uninhabited. But is it possible that even though the cursed dwell there, it will be as though it were uninhabited–continually? The cursed is a mere shade, flitting about in unrelenting unshaded aridity–unrelenting emptiness. He becomes simply one more naturally occurring feature in a naturally inhospitable conditions, impossible to distinguish from the other inanimate objects. It is as though he doesn’t exist. Yet, for the one in this category, who trusts in his own “flesh,” life was the reason for uprooting from the LORD and re-rooting in something else. Pleasure has become the instinctual drive. He is not even an animal–who can at least be trained to endure pain for deferred pleasure. His soul is becoming an inanimate object–lifeless.

Yet, when the promised parched wilderness flits about the blessed, he produces fruit, he produces life. Seeking his own life, as a lifestyle, the cursed become indistinguishable from inanimate objects in the desert. Seeking the LORD, as a lifestyle, life finds the blessed and is produced through him.

Notice that the two men are distinguished not by their own righteousness or the lack thereof. Rather they are distinguished by their soil in which their roots of trust are planted. The man in the first stanza has turned away from the LORD, while the man in the second stanza continues to trust in the LORD, despite the external conditions. Yet, the third stanza is an indictment on both men–the cursed and the blessed:

“The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick (or wicked).”

Neither man in either stanza are blessed or cursed because of their inherent states of righteousness. Either man is blessed or cursed because of where he has chosen to embed his roots. The LORD tests hearts and minds, giving “according to the fruit of his deeds.” The cursed is given a perpetual desert, though he may live in luxury, and he produces nothing but dusty mirages. The blessed is given the LORD, though he may live in the desert, and he produces the life of God.

I am certainly not among those who “have no need of a physician” (cf. Matt 9:9-12; ESV). It is tempting to read “is not anxious” concerning the blessed as a barbed wire fence keeping me out of this group, preventing me access to the Great Physician. Yet, I think this is a progression of growth that is but one more fruit that is developed in the blessed, which in turn is fertilizer for other important life-giving fruit. Like most natural fertilizer, developing into one who trusts rather than is anxious, does not have the best of smells. However, isn’t in keeping with the goodness and wisdom of God, that He uses the refuse that life throws at us, who trust in Him, to make us into His natural fertilizer for growing His life in the most lifeless places of the wilderness?!

He is the Lord of Life and desires to heal all human hearts of “desperate sickness.” It requires that we root our-selves in the Great Physician and not in our own flesh, which has gangrene. Can we endure His medicine?

“Justification by Faith,” by John Wesley, (date not given)

Text: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justfieth (sic) the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 5:8)

In this sermon Wesley addresses the question of how a sinner may be justified before a holy and righteous God. He divides his material into four questions:

1. What is the grounding for justification?
2. What is the nature of justification?
3. Who are thejustified?
4. What are the terms on which they are justified?

Part One: What is the grounding for justification?

• Man was made in the image of God—holy, merciful and perfect
• God gave perfect man a perfect law
• That perfect law was the law of love, but he added another: prohibition against eating from that Tree
• In Paradise man was “holy and happy”
• Man disobeyed: “For the moment he tasted that fruit he died”
• Sin entered the world through Adam
• In Jesus have redemption—“a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world”
• God “vouchsafes” forgiveness, restoration and the promise of eternal life “on one only condition”
• That condition is justification

Part Two: What is the nature of justification?

• Justification, while naturally leading to sanctification, is sufficiently different from sanctification
• Jesus justifies, the Spirit sanctifies
• Romans nor Galatians teaches that justification is the removal of the accusation of Satan, though such is certainly the by-product
• Easier to take previous point for granted than prove it by Scripture
• “Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies”
• Justification is simply the pardoning of Sins.

Part Three: Who are the justified?

• “the ungodly … the ungodly of every kind and degree; and none but the ungodly”
• This runs directly counter to some who insist that sanctification must precede justification
• Good Shepherd seeks and saves the lost, not the found-already—“sinner of every kind, of every degree”
• “These who are sick, the burden of whose sins is intolerable, are they that need a Physician; these who are guilty, who groan under the wrath of God, are they that need a pardon”
• “For his heart is necessarily, essentially evil, till the love of God is shed abroad therein”
• Good works in two senses

1. broad—generally beneficial to the whole of man
2. specific—arising out of a heart cleansed by God (speaks to intentions being purified)

• Wesley here considers all works done before justification as categorically “not good”
• Wesley’s logic of “truly and properly good” works:

1. “No works are good, which are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done”
2. “But no works done before justification are done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done”
3. “Therefore, no works done before justification are good”

• Since God commanded all works to be done in charity, and none of our works can be done in charity apart from the holy love of God residing in the heart, no works are good before justification

Part Four: What are the terms on which they are justified?

• Faith—to believe in Him that justifies the ungodly
• Faith is “conviction” that is “a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that he saved me, and gave himself for me
• Faith is “a sure trust and confidence” that God has and will continue to forgive my sins
• Warning is issued against losing this confidence
• “Therefore, have a sure and constant faith, not only that the death of Christ is available for all the world, but that he hath made a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins….”
• Admits that man may have virtues and do good works before having justifying faith, “but he is still a child of wrath, still under the curse, till he believes in Jesus”
• Faith necessary condition of justification—thus God “treats us as though we were guiltless and righteous”
• Not necessary to understand this mystery to profit from it
• In fact it may not even be right for us to question this mystery of mercy
• One reason for this mystery may be “to hide pride from man”
• thus humility required to receive justification by faith

Here it is beneficial to quote Wesley’s final point, his benedictory call, at length:

“Thou ungodly one, who hearest or readest these words! thou vile, helpless, miserable sinner! I charge thee before God, the Judge of all, go straight unto him, with all they ungodliness. Take heed thou destroy not thy own soul by pleading thy righteousness, more or less. Go as altogether ungodly, guilty, lost, destroyed, deserving and dropping into hell; and thou shalt then find favour in his sight, and know that he justifieth the ungodly. As such thou shalt be brought unto the blood of sprinkling, as an undone, helpless, damned sinner. Thus look unto Jesus! There is the Lamb of God, who taketh away thy sins! Plead thou no works, no righteousness of thine own! no humility, contrition, sincerity! In nowise. That were, in very deed, to deny the Lord that bough thee. No: Plead thou, singly, the blood fo the covenant, the ransom paid for thy proud, stubborn, sinful soul. Who are thou, that now seest and feelest both thine inward and outward ungodliness? Thou art the man! I want thee for my Lord! I challenge thee for a child of God by faith! The Lord hath need of thee. Thou who feelest thou art just fit for hell, art just fit to advance his glory; the glory of his free grace, justifying the ungodly and him that worketh not. O com quickly! Believe in the Lord Jesus; and thou, even thou, art reconciled to God.”

Text: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 4:31).

In this powerful sermon, Wesley is concerned with the practice of what he terms, “Scriptural Christianity.” Such is being filled with the Holy Spirit to such a level that the Love of God seems to flow naturally out of the heart towards the wider world and vanquishes all vices within one’s life. While the gifts of the Spirit are important, he is concerned with the fruit of the Spirit manifested overtly. He attempts to trek New Testament Christianity and lay it as a plumb line against the practice of his contemporaries. In so doing he discusses three inquiries and considers practical applications.

1. Individual Christianity.
   1. The Holy Spirit draws the individual to Christ, and he receives the spirit of adoption
   2. The Holy Spirit kneeds that divine conviction into the heart and mind
   3. The individual is enabled by the Spirit to worship in rejoicing in his Salvation, experiences full renewal of the soul (true holiness), and hope for Heaven
   4. Love of God floods the heart, “So that God was the desire of his eyes, and the joy of his heart; his portion in time and in eternity”
   5. This feeds into loving one’s neighbor, especially his enemies: “They have a peculiar place, both in his heart and in his prayers”
   6. Humility and faithfulness in love of neighbor
   7. Integrity in speech to neighbor
   8. Through the means of grace there is daily growth in grace and continual increase in strength and knowledge of God
   9. Not mere abstaining from evil, but, “His soul was athirst to do good”
   10. As Christianity on the rise, all individual Christians in one accord in unity
2. Christianity as spreading from individual to individual
   1. Salt and Light in influence of others
   2. Passion to bring the lost to Jesus
   3. Doing good to all and “warning them to flee from the wrath to come; now, now to escape the damnation of hell”
   4. Speaking to each person according to their situational need:
      1. Awaken the Sinner
      2. Reassure awakened sinner of “Advocate” and “Propitiation” in Christ
      3. Believers provoked to further good works and further abounding in holiness
   5. While Christianity grew, it attracted offenses within established society among the trade, social, and religious worlds
   6. As Christianity spread, so did persecution
   7. With increased persecution Christianity spread further: the blood of the martyrs spoke through the heathen
   8. As Christianity grew, so did corruption within
3. Christianity as spreading throughout the globe
   1. A Christian world in spite of Satan is inevitable, as foretold by the prophets
   2. Christian world to include all of Israel
   3. If that day is now dawning, then it is one of total righteousness, peace and justice rooted deep within the people along with the absence of war and oppression
   4. In addition to righteousness and justice, mercy is found, as God has vanquished malicious, revengeful, and envious. Everyone lives by Golden Rule
   5. Christians incapable of sin, because “only love and God are there” in the hearts of the people
   6. Everlasting happiness and light arise from such a people in such a day
4. Practical Application
   1. Where does this Christianity now exist? Is there a Christian country?
   2. Wesley plead with them to keep their hearts warm to him and his questions.
   3. He asks the audience if theirs is a Christian city, wherein the city officials are “filled with the Holy Ghost”
   4. Questions of Scriptural Christianity in being filled with Holy Spirit are essential to Christianity
   5. Questions public officials
   6. Questions educators
   7. Questions the aspiring clerics: “Let it not be said, that I speak here, as if all under your care were intended to be Clergymen. Not so: I only speak as if they were all intended to be Christians”
   8. Questions to the clergy:
      1. Are we taught of God, that we may be able to teach others also?
      2. Do we know God?
      3. Do we know Jesus Christ?
      4. Hath “God revealved his Son in us?”
      5. And hath he “made us able Ministers of the new covenant?
   9. Questions to the youth
5. Good conclusion:
   1. “Shall Christianity, then, be restored by young, unknown, inconsiderable men? I know not whether ye yourselves could suffer it. Would not some of you cry out, ‘Young man, in so doing thou reproachest us?’ But there is no danger of your being put to the proof; so hath iniquity overspread us like a flood. Whom, then shall God send,–the famine, the pestilence, (the last messengers of God to a guilty land,) or the sword, ‘the armies of the’ Romish ‘aliens,’–to reform us into our first love? Nay, ‘rather let us fall into thy hand, O Lord, and let us not fall into the hand of ‘man.’”

After studying this sermon, I am driven all the more to seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit everyday in my life.

Text: “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light” (Ephesians 5:14).

In this sermon Charles Wesley is doing three things: Describing the sleepers, emphasizing the call for sleepers to awaken, and explaining the light of Christ. In the Wesleyan spirit the sleeper is both heathen and church goer. Consider the following:

He sees no necessity for the one thing needful, even that inward universal change, that “birth from above,” figured out by baptism, which is the beginning of that total renovation, that sanctification of spirit, soul, and body, “without which no man shall see the Lord.”

For the wakeful Christian, then there is the experience of conversion that is a genuine ”new birth” that is more than cliché. It is wrought by God and is the beginning of a total transformation of the total self.  The last quote within the larger quote is from Hebrews 12:14: “Strive for peace with everyone and for the holiness without which on one will see the Lord.”

The wakeful Christian is filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit in an experiential relationship with God: “This experimental knowledge, and this alone, is true Christianity.” The Holy Spirit is what makes the difference between church goer and Christian. How very charismatic! Yet this is from the ministerial team that totally eschewed “enthusiasm.” Thus charismatic is something different from personality orientation. It is an experiential relationship with God in the Holy Spirit that produces fruit in the world. What would happen to Mainline Methodism if it returned to a high view of Scriptural Authority in a charismatic relationship with God?

Consider the following:

Art thou a “partaker fo the divine nature?” Knowest thou not, that “Christ is in thee, except thou be a reprobate?” Knowest, thou, that God “Dwelleth in thee, and thou in God, by his Spirit, which he hath given thee?” Knowest thou not that “thy body is a temple fo the Holy Ghost, which thou has of God?” Has thou the witness in thyself? the earnest of thine inheritance? Hast thou “received the Holy Ghost?” Or, dost thou start at the question, not knowing “whether there be any Holy Ghost?” …. Dost thou know what religion is? that it is a participation of the divine nature; the life of God in the soul of man; Christ formed in the heart; “Christ in thee, the hope of glory?” happiness and holiness; heaven begun upon earth? “a kingdom of God within thee; not meat and drink,” no outward thing; “but righteousness, and peace, and joy int he Holy Ghost?” an everlasting kingdom brought into thy soul; a “peace fo God, that passeth all understanding;” a “joy unspeakable, and full fo glory?”

Text: Acts 25:28, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”

In this sermon Wesley distinguishes between those who are “almost Christians” and those who are “altogether Christians.” The “almost Christians” are both noble and admirable heathens and faithful church goers, who “hath the form of godliness, uses also the means of grace” but lacks sincerity in relationship with God.

The “altogether Christians” are those who love God and neighbor relentlessly. The true love of God flowing out of the “altogether Christian” heart “is this, as engrosses the whole heart, as takes up all the affections, as fills the entire capacity of the soul, and employs the utmost extent of all its faculties.” He continually rejoices and delights in God.

Significant is the following quote: “‘The right and true Christian faith is,’ (to go on in the words of our own Church,) ‘not only to believe that holy Scripture and the articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ. It is a sure trust and confidence wich a man hath in God, that by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God; whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments.’”

Accordingly, Wesley believed that Scripture and Tradition were the foundation, the grounding of faith, though Wesley would certainly assert that Scripture be the grounding of Tradition. Growing out of this is a channeled emotional relationship, “a sure trust and confidence” with Christ. Out of this is produced “a loving heart” and the ability and desire to “obey his commandments.” For Wesley then, Christianity was not a static state, whereby we await Heaven with white knuckles. It is a dynamic relationship with Christ, grounded in Scripture and channeled through the Traditions of the Church that produces a transformed heart and world.

His text is Ephesians 2:8, “By grace are ye saved through faith.” In his introduction, John Wesley takes great pains to emphasize that his understanding of grace is that it is free and unearnable but necessary: “Grace is the source, faith the condition of salvation.” The body of this sermon is three questions in pursuit of the goal, “that we fall not short of the grace of God”:

1. What faith it is through which we are saved.
2. What is the salvtion which is through faith.
3. How we may answer some objections.

Three things stood out to me in this sermon. Authentic faith in Christ saves from both the guilt and the power of sin. Authentic faith in Christ is not detached from good works, “but productive of all good works, and all holiness.” Salvation does not have its source or fount in human good works: “… for none can turst in the merits of Christ, till he has utterly renounced his own.”