The real soteriological divide...

I'm concerned about your misrepresentation of Arminius' position contra his own words, not Dorts' conclusion.

 

Interestingly enough, on one of the main divides between Catholic and Protestant theology: the difference between the infusion of the righteousness of Christ (the RCC view) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness (the historic Reformed view), Arminius finds himself agreeing with the Reformers,

"I will only briefly say, "I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, [or mercy seat] through faith in his blood." ~ Vol. I Works

 

I am an unashamed Arminian/Free-Will Baptist... and we claim Salvation by grace through faith not by grace through sacraments. There exists a very wide gulf between Arminian and Catholic soteriologies. Don't confuse yourself here.

We claim Justification through the merits of Christ on the Cross, period. Not by faith and works are we saved. God moves the heart that is willing.

 

However, I've read some statements of Wesley indicating he had a high view of the sacraments (baptism and communion) and that these could in fact convey grace and help the believer grow in grace. Of course this does not occur independently of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, but are rather closely connected to Christ's finished work of redemption.

 

I would love to read anything you could offer up as evidence to this effect...

 

Well of course. But I find very few people solely in one camp or solely in the other camp if the issues are studied out carefully. There may be a whole lot more in the Calvinist camp. But when you enter the Baptist camp in general, how many that you would classify "Arminian" in general, actually believe that one can lose their salvation. Not many. They put emphasis on free will, but that doesn't make them Arminian, a great mistake by the Calvinists.

 

I'm not DT, but as a Baptist just starting on my Spiritual journey and trying to get my theological balance, my family and I started going to a United Methodist Church. I was actually introduced to the UMC when I was dating my wife and there I was introduced to 'liturgy', if you want to call it that, but that's another story.

Anyway, the associate preacher and I had a long discussion regarding theology and he gave me a book called: Sanctity Without Starch by Robert G. Tuttle, JR. The book is considered A Layperson's guide to a Wesleyan Theology of Grace.

This book really aided me in my spiritual journey to Orthodoxy.

Enjoy...

In XC
-

 

My guess is you would have hated the first 300 years of the early Church when they didn't have Roman Basilicas built by the Emperor and only had little household communities. Which was the 'real' ecclesia?

I'm familiar with Wesley's actually Sermons but not familiar with modern works of Methodist Liturgical Theology. I'm sure I'd be surprised at how far they've moved from their founder.

High Imperial Tradition at it's finest. I guess if you're going to embrace such a thing going East might make sense.

 

Matt

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. The only place I would differ is the use of the term Reformed. As a Baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace [the Sovereignty of God in Salvation of His Elect] I just consider myself Biblical.

 

Define what you mean by a "Works-based Salvation"...

My guess you'll find 'no' Baptist outlining a 'means to Salvation' outside of grace through faith. That doesn't mean that one's fruit might suggest one is unregenerate. Big difference. We are 'called to holiness' not to 'be saved' but to 'manifest our faith in our lives and as a witness to the world'.

 

You will know them by their fruit... it did not say it will be established by their fruit. critical soteriological difference.

Salvation is the font in which good works flow. They do not establish the font, itself.

If we don't find good works flowing from one whom professes Faith in Christ... there is room for concern wouldn't you agree? Are we to put to death the Old Man or what?

 

I believe we are asked 'to fight the good fight' I'm not sure if we've ever been told we had to 'win'. Salvation is not established nor maintained by our success. We have our victory in Christ don't we?

 

I think that would be questionable but we can't determine that of others. We can't see into their hearts. Remember, St. Paul said that 'there Saviour can make them stand'.

Think of it this way. Statistically, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox all have abortions on mean with the secular population. Evangelicals don't even though many Evangelicals believe in Salvation without Works. This is because 'real' Faith changes lives, not a personal determination to be saved. Now, I'm not beating up on Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox but I am pointing out an important distinction. Even though many if not all Believers hold to Salvation without Works, Good Works manifest none-the-less. It's not about our Theology, it's about God's Grace working in us, not me... Christ in me.

 

That is news to me. You misunderstand some of the debates. There have been plenty of debates on whether one can drink wine (or any other alcoholic beverage).
It always boils down to soul liberty; never salvation.
Some believe it is right; some wrong.
There is no one here (Baptist) that I know of that takes the position "If you drink an alcoholic beverage you will lose your salvation." That is absurd to even infer such a position. No baptist believes that, that I know of.