Thomas C. Oden was a leading Wesley scholar and Methodist theologian. If all you read are Calvinist authors, I think you would appreciate Oden. Many of us in the Free Grace movement are far closer to Wesleyan theology than we are to Calvinist theology. For example, we both believe that God loves everyone, Jesus died for everyone, that man has free-will, and that spiritual growth is conditional on man’s cooperation with God. So you’ll often find yourself agreeing with theologians like Oden.
But you’ll also be frustrated.
At least, that’s how I felt as I read through Oden’s summary of John Wesley’s theology, entitled, John Wesley’s Teaching, Volume 2: Christ and Salvation. Here is a quote from p. 75. I’ve included the headings, too, because they illustrate the problem I see. Here is the quote:
Faith is “the sole condition of justification,” and in fact “the only necessary condition” of justification. Without faith one is still under the curse of the law. Faith is counted to the believer as righteousness.
- The Terms on Which Saving Grace Is Received
a. Simply Repent and Believe
“The terms of acceptance for fallen man are repentance and faith. ‘Repent and believe the gospel.’ Repent and believe. Repentance turns away from sin, while faith turns toward grace, so as to view this as a single turning (Christ and Salvation, p. 75).
Do you see the contradiction?
At first, Oden quotes Wesley as saying faith is “the sole condition of justification.” That seems very clear. And that is very right. We are only justified by faith.
The word “sole” means “being only one” or “having no companion.” When you say that faith is the sole condition, you mean there is nothing else to add to faith to be justified. There is no “companion” to faith. It is by faith alone.
But then immediately after saying faith is the “sole” condition, what does Oden write? Look at the headers!
“4. The Terms on Which Saving Grace Is Received.”
Terms?
As in, plural? More than one term?
Wait, isn’t faith the “sole” condition?
And then the next header—“a. Simply Repent and Believe.”
I thought faith was not supposed to have any companions—but here comes “repent”!
And if there’s any doubt that repentance is not being used as a synonym for faith, Oden defines it this way: “Repentance turns away from sin…”
Turning from sin is not the same thing as believing something, is it? Breaking off an adulterous relationship, flushing the drugs down the toilet, or picking up the phone to apologize is not the same as believing that something is true.
If I heard this being taught in a Methodist church, I would be confused. One Sunday I might hear that faith is the sole condition. Another Sunday I might hear that I also had to repent of all my different sins to be saved. What would I come to believe? I’m saved by faith plus turning from my sins. In other words, I would believe in works salvation.
Are you Methodist? Have you heard this kind of contradictory teaching too?
Leo Z
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment Pastor Shawn. Confusion abounds when error is brought about by a departure from what Scripture says and teaches. It also happens when erroneous redefinitions of key words attached to key biblical concepts happen (e.g. faith, saving faith, believe etc.). One of the most confusing phrases out there is “faith alone saves but the faith that saves is never alone”. What? Is faith alone or not? Of course we know what the bottom line explanation of the phrase is, salvation by faith plus works. Here, in the case of Oden summarizing and quoting Wesley, he says that the “sole” condition for salvation is faith but turns around and gives 2 conditions, believe and repent, which of course he counts as 1 and the same. He defends it with the 2 sides of a coin concept, which is untenable because it is clear that the two words are different defined and not even related or close in its meaning. Even your everyday English dictionary defines believe and repent differently and so far apart to be synonymous.
Again, I believe that in any theological double speak, we are seeing the subtle manipulation of God’s truth by the god of this age, the one who blinds and veils man’s mind to the light of the gospel of the glory of Jesus. What might be a better way of doing that? Not with an outright rejection but by presenting half truths in its stead.
Yes, we may agree on a lot of things with Wesleyan theology but sadly we also disagree in essential non-negotiable truths of Scripture.
As always, you and GES are in my prayers.
Barry Blundi
It is the sustanciating of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The Spirit teaches us nothing more, and nothing less.
Ken Tamashiro
Thanks Pastor Shawn,
I’ve seen much of the double speak going on and it is never Challenged as double speak. Some how many will get away with it, …unless someone Challenges their Double Speak Gospel. Maybe we should call it the …(Doublespeak Gospel of Error.)
Grace and Peace to you,
Ken Tamashiro
Leo Z
It is sad that many people even some who have experienced spiritual regeneration and have received God’s free gift of life everlasting in His Son Jesus, have fallen into such duplicitous error. Many of them are now saved but confused. As I’ve always said, one of the most effective ways Satan employs to deceive people is his mastery of double speak. The sly manipulation of God!s truth, watering it down, turning it into half truths, adding on not so inherently bad concepts and good intentions where it doesn’t belong (e.g. faith plus whatever it maybe, obedience, surrender, repentance etc). Any moralist will quickly buy into that message. He uses these things to twist the truth to lead people astray. In this he appeals to people’s zealousness for piety and holiness and uses it for his trickery. Oh, how I’ve seen it happen over and over as you undoubtedly have as well. Sadder is the fact that it’s not only unbelievers that Satan uses to accomplish this task. He uses confused believers as well.
Remember what Jesus called the devil when he was addressing the Jewish rulers in John 8:44? He said, “he (the devil) does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him…he is a liar…the father of lies”. My paraphrase…”he is the master of double speak”.
With such an enemy, it gives us more reason as believers to discernfully and vigilantly hold fast to the truth, contending for It at every turn and opportunity. In the Holy Spirit’s power and strength of course.
Steve
Thank you. That has always bothered me as well. And it’s not just Methodists. I currently teach a class in a Southern Baptist Church and I run into this contradiction all of the time.
Janelle
I think Wesley was much closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism. This is the impression I get after reading the book “Responsible Grace” by Randy L. Maddox on Wesley’s theology.
Maddox notes that Wesley thought we would be judged by our works to determine whether we will be saved or not (Maddox, 251). Maddox writes that for Wesley “our very capacity for growth in Christ-likeness (New Birth) is contingent upon God’s gracious pardoning prevenience (initial justification), while the continuance of God’s acceptance (final justification) becomes contingent upon our responsive growth in Christ-likeness (sanctification).”(172) “Works of mercy” were required or a Christian’s salvation was endangered (150 and 242). Supposedly, Wesley realized he was not teaching the same view of justification by faith alone as other Reformers, and stopped claiming that he was (150).
This explains why during the time I attended a Wesleyan church, I had no assurance of salvation, and constantly feared I was not holy enough for God to love me or let me into heaven.
Now, after having learned the Free Grace message, I am finally able to have peace and joy and assurance of salvation. I’m working on my PhD in systematic theology now, and hope to promote the Free Grace message in my future books and teaching career. I’ve also started a blog where I’m trying to get my ideas out there: https://jzeeb.com