Fellow Methodists, Original Sin is Your 'Original' Doctrine, NOT Pelagianism

Theopedia describes Original Sin and Pelagianism this way:

Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind's first parents to the revealed will of God. In the Bible, the first human transgression of God's command is described as the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden resulting in what theology calls the Fall of mankind. The doctrine of original sin holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the Fall such that all of humanity is ethically debilitated, and people are powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by God.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

Just recently, a controversy arose among our Southern Baptist brothers, of which a serious issue involves Original Sin. But the same rising danger is not foreign to The United Methodist Church. Just few months ago, I also heard from a lecture of a former bishop of UMC an explicit denial of the doctrine of Original Sin. He even claimed that Methodists do not believe it. It appears to me that some Methodist pastors (and laymen) whose theology is influenced by liberalism trade Original Sin with the old heresy of Pelagianism (or with some modifications of it).

Whether that former bishop was just oblivious, historically ignorant or intentionally lying, I do not know. All I know is that Original Sin is very Methodistic, very Protestant, very historically accepted by the church and very biblical.

I found this from the official website of The United Methodist Church [original source here]:

Does The United Methodist Church believe that babies are born in sin?

Yes. We do believe that babies, at birth, are contaminated by sin. The ancient teaching of the church on this is called the doctrine of original sin.

 The Articles of Religion in our Book of Discipline state:

"Article VII - Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of  Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually." 

The point here is that we do not choose ["Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam"] to follow the way of sin; indeed, we cannot help it without the grace of God. 

It means, as Romans 5 puts it (see all of chapter 5 which is about salvation) "as by one man's disobedience [Adam's] the many [meaning all who are born] were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience [Jesus] the many will be made righteous." This is Paul’s way of spelling out both the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of salvation.  Remember here, we are dealing with Paul's way of setting this up. Christ can redeem all because his faithfulness to God in perfect love and obedience matches and exceeds the disobedience of one man, Adam. 

The notion of original sin does not compute very well with the modern outlook. Most of the 20th century church tried to dance around it and then wondered why Jesus' saving work was hard to get serious about. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” says 1st John, vs. 8. 

The point is that we, from birth, need the grace of God available in Jesus Christ. We cannot hope in some tiny spark of goodness at our core that is always there to get us through. We are without merit or claim upon God on our own. This is a hard pill to swallow in our "enlightened" and modern perspective. On the other hand, what a gracious hope and gospel we proclaim and live if we simply accept the desperate need we are in from the beginning and the washing of water and the word in baptism where God claims us as God's own in union with Christ, dying to sin and living alive to God by the power of the Spirit.

Rev. Dan Benedict

Center for Worship Resourcing

General Board of Discipleship

This conforms with our Methodist fathers George Whitefield and John Wesley:

"[Y]ou must not only be convinced of your actual transgressions against the law of God, but likewise of the foundation of all your transgressions. And what is that? I mean original sin, that original corruption each of us brings into the world with us, which renders us liable to God's wrath and damnation. There are many poor souls that think themselves fine reasoners, yet they pretend to say there is no such thing as original sin; they will charge God with injustice in imputing Adam's sin to us; although we have got the mark of the beast and of the devil upon us, yet they tell us we are not born in sin. Let them look abroad into the world and see the disorders in it, and think, if they can, if this is the paradise in which God did put man. No! everything in the world is out of order. I have often thought, when I was abroad, that if there were no other argument to prove original sin, the rising of wolves and tigers against man, nay, the barking of a dog against us, is a proof of original sin. Tigers and lions durst not rise against us, if it were not for Adam's first sin; for when the creatures rise up against us, it is as much as to say, You have sinned against God, and we take up our Master's quarrel. If we look inwardly, we shall see enough of lusts, and man's temper contrary to the temper of God. There is pride, malice, and revenge, in all our hearts; and this temper cannot come from God; it comes from our first parent, Adam, who, after he fell from God, fell out of God into the devil. However, therefore, some people may deny this, yet when conviction comes, all carnal reasonings are battered down immediately and the poor soul begins to feel and see the fountain from which all the polluted streams do flow." (George Whitefield, on "The Method of Grace", emphasis mine)

"Hence we may...learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" [Gen.6:5] Allow this [original sin], and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still." (John Wesley on "Original Sin", emphasis mine)

So important is Original Sin to Wesley that he labeled anyone who denies it as 'heathen' (i.e., pagan or unChristian)!

Moreover, this teaching was strongly affirmed both by the Reformers and the Church Fathers. 

"Original Sin, then, may be defined as a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works   of   the   flesh.  This   corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin (Gal. 5:19); while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings he terms, in the same way, fruits of sin, though in various passages of scripture, they are also termed sins." (John Calvin)

"The original sin in a man is like his beard, which, though shaved off today so that   a   man is very smooth around his mouth, yet grows again by tomorrow morning. As long as a man lives, such growth of hair and beard does not stop. But when the shovel slaps the ground on his grave, it stops. In just this way, original sin remains in us and exercises itself as long as we live, but we must resist it and always be cutting off its hair." (Martin Luther)

"The so-called innocence of children is more a matter of weakness of limb, than purity of heart." (Augustine of Hippo)

"Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world....When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men." (Athanasius)

The heresy of Pelagianism refuses to die but the Church should be careful not to buy it, lest she apostasizes. May this post serve as a warning to my fellow Methodists as well as my fellow Protestant-Evangelicals. And may those Methodists who have been swayed by Pelagianism see that Original Sin is their "original" doctrine.

"No, These Reformed Methodists are NOT Reformaniacs"

Yesterday was this blog's 1st birthday. Those who have already dug this must have already noticed my (and my fanged friends') inclination to what we call "Reformed" theology. And we're vocal. Yes, we are Calvinists. And, yes, John Wesley—the founder of Methodism—isn't. Though we would argue that, even by creed and heritage, we are accepted by the United Methodist Church.

We confess that we are passionate Calvinists but we deny that Calvinism is the primary concern of these Reformed Methodists in the blogosphere. We deny that one cannot be saved and/or godly without affirming Calvinism. We further deny that one is obliged to read the books of John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur or John Piper to join our battle (though we would encourage everyone to try them). We are not Reformaniacs[1].

On the other hand, we affirm that our main concern is the vivification of TRUE United Methodism. Or, more specifically, the essentials for Evangelical Methodism, which Wesley himself enumerated in this popular quotation:

“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”

There he pointed out Three Essentials for Methodists to remain as a living church rather than as a "dead sect": (1) Doctrine, (2) Spirit, and (3) Discipline.

Wesley explained the reason:

"The Methodists must take heed to their doctrine, their experience, their practice, and their discipline. If they attend to their doctrines only, they will make the people antinomians; if to the experimental part of religion only, they will make them enthusiasts; if to the practical part only, they will make them Pharisees; and if they do not attend to their discipline, they will be like persons who bestow much pains in cultivating their garden, and put no fence round it, to save it from the wild boar of the forest."

So by doctrine, Wesley was referring to intellectual understanding of biblical truths. He said that attending to this alone (knowledge) would make us forget the laws/commands of God (what he meant by "antinomians"), which should be practiced and kept with discipline.

By spirit, Wesley was referring to passionate, practical Christian living. He combined emotions and actions. Attending to "spirit" alone would make us either "enthusiasts" (ones who base their religion on emotions only) or "Pharisees" (ones who base their religion on rules only).

By discipline, Wesley was referring to corrective discipline that the church should establish to maintain both doctrine and Christian living. What is noteworthy also in that quote is that, unlike the first two, its importance is emphasized rather than the danger of isolating it. He compared it to a "fence" while the doctrine and Christian living to a "garden". Without it, false teachers and persistent sinners ("wild boars") would just destroy the other two.

Though Calvin's defining marks of a church is two-thirds different[2] from Wesley's, Calvin never undermined Wesley's.

Concerning doctrine and Christian living, Calvin said:

"Let us be warned to pursue our calling in fear and anxiety, to take the trouble to learn from good and useful doctrine, having above all this end: that we hunger to know nothing except what it has pleased God to reveal to us in his Scripture. Let us not subject the sacred Word of God to our judgments or lusts, but rather let us align ourselves entirely with what it says to us.” (Against the Fantastic and Furious Sect of the Libertines)

And concerning church discipline, he said:

"If no society, nay, no house with even a moderate family, can be kept in a right state without discipline, much more necessary is it in the Church, whose state ought to be the best ordered possible. Hence as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the Church, so discipline is, as it were, its sinews; for to it it is owing that the members of the body adhere together, each in its own place. Wherefore, all who either wish that discipline were abolished, or who impede the restoration of it, whether they do this of design or through thoughtlessness, certainly aim at the complete devastation of the Church." (Institutes, Book IV, Ch. 1)

I am far from suggesting that Calvin and Wesley always had parallel ideas about doctrines, piety and discipline. But I would contend that both are zealous for orthodox doctrines, serious Christian living, and courageous church discipline[3]—three important characteristics that modern churches (including many United Methodist churches) lack.

By orthodox doctrines, I refer to the essentials in Christian faith.

By serious Christian living, I refer to sincere godly lifestyle.

By courageous church discipline, I refer to bold and plain execution of admonition and excommunication of persistently erring church members.

Currently, The United Methodist Church is little by little departing from these, and this is where we want "Reformation" most. 

Disagree? 

1. Attend conferences and note how often "doctrine" will be discussed. Compare it to political issues.

2. Note one sermon from the pulpit. Did the preacher mention about any historical context of the main text? How many verses did he quote, anyway?

3. Ask at least five old members in your church what "Justification by Faith Alone" is. (How about just asking them to enumerate the Bible books?)

4. Evaluate the church members' handling of money and if it somehow conforms to "gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can".

5. Check your church membership records and compare the number of members to the active members in your church.

6. Find out if there are church members who are addicted to cigarette smoking or to liquor. Now, find out if there is anyone (perhaps, a pastor or an elder) in your church who already rebuked them.

7. Check this retired Methodist Bishops' Statement of Counsel concerning homosexuality.

The list can go on and on yet the point is: United Methodism is drifting away from the important things it once embraced.

Again, we are not Reformaniacs. But we are indeed crazily in love with the United Methodist Church, thus, we are shouting for reformation. Brothers in Christ, join us in this battle. 

Soli Deo Gloria.

------------------------------------------------

[1] Ones who are overly-passionate for Reformed theology; ones whose enthusiasm for Reformed theology equates their enthusiasm for the essentials of Christian faith.

[2] Reformed teaching holds doctrine, sacraments and worship as defining marks of a true church: "[The universal] church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them” (The Westminster Confession, Ch. 25, IV) And Calvin seems to say that preaching and hearing of pure doctrine implies true worship: “Wherever we find the Word of God surely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to be doubted, is a church of God.”

[3] I would even argue that Wesley has nearer resemblance to Calvin's theology than to Contemporary Wesleyanism: http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.the.calvinist.htm

A Young Methodist's Evaluation of UMC

Last January, I attended a Methodist Lay Seminar (I am, by the way, a 20-year-old Methodist). A lecturer gave us this assignment one day: 

Write an article that shows the areas in United Methodist Church where you see "unbelief", and note what you can do to change them.  

The following was what I submitted (sorry, it's a bit long).

----------------------------------------
 

Before all else, let me first clarify that I will broadly define “unbelief” here. I took it to mean “not believing what is openly taught by the Scriptures”, whether they know it already or not yet (for even Christians do call those who have not yet heard the gospel as “unbelievers”). Ignorance of biblical teaching is, in a sense, “unbelief” because just as the general revelation of God in His creation is open so is the Scriptures very accessible to our church today.
 

Doubtless the primary source of unbelief is the pulpit, the supposed place where all forms of unbelief are exposed. The pulpit is as open as the pews. Anyone—politicians, businessmen, unlearned laymen, heretics, etc.—who desires to preach is accepted, ignoring the warning of James not to make everyone a teacher (how much more with preachers!) and of John to test every spirit. Some people might find that statement exaggerated but I’ve already heard so much ugly statements from the pulpit–-statements which distort the trinity (e.g., “Jesus is the Father”), which teaches salvation by works (e.g., “give for the church building so that your name may be written in heaven”), which promotes universalism, which teaches easy-believism, which affirms positive confession (e.g., “if you proclaim it, it will happen”), and many other intolerable false teachings, which are not only offensive to United Methodism but also to Evangelicalism. And the saddest part is that the pastor most of the time calls it “beautiful” and that the congregation applauds them. And it’s not only in the pulpit. I know one Sunday school teacher who is a fanatic of Apollo Quiboloy, founder of that Oneness cult. For me, our church is ignorantly embracing a reckless faith.

I believe that the deeper reason for that, which I’ll classify as the second area, lies in Christian Education (or should I call it, Christian Mis-education?). Hermeneutics has become an alien word to the postmodern church. You can rarely hear good expositions in the pulpit and in teaching ministries. And its importance is never emphasized.  Figurative and subjective interpretations are tolerated. Morality is far more valued than doctrines as if false doctrines are not deadly. Traditional celebrations are desired more than educational ones (like completely reading a book in the Bible, finishing a Sunday school set of lessons, etc.) And we know in Acts 2 that this is not the pattern. The first step is growing in the apostles’ doctrine. You missed that, you’ll miss the rest. Not to miss that means being grounded in hermeneutics. In fact, eisegesis is the common denominator of all Christian cults. For me, despite our sound creeds and confessions, our church is ignorantly embracing a cultic foundation.
 

The third area, which springs from the first two aforementioned ones, is the church’s testimony. Because the church has become careless in doctrines, it has also become careless in discipline. With a distorted view of grace, the church tolerates many sins of its members. One obvious sin is in attendance. The author of Hebrews commands us to meet often. And this I believe is a sickness stuck in almost all Methodist churches. How many Methodist churches are truly concerned with true membership? There’s a part in our liturgies where birthdays of members are written and I usually read there names of people whom I do not know, whom I know but no longer attends for a very long time, who attends other denomination already, and sometimes who are already deceased. The church failed to distinguish those who are in the inside from those who are in the outside. This is largely the pastor’s mistake. It’s his duty to make sure as much as he could that the visible church he administers and feeds is a part of the universal church. That is, he should make sure as much as he could that the members are true believers. This he can do by exercising church discipline, making sure that all his members bear fruit, since they all profess to be believers. And obviously who can bear fruit if he is not there? Long, unexplained nonattendance must imply self-excommunication already. In fact, joy in the company of the saints is an inevitable fruit of a true Christian. Church discipline does not mean forsaking the person. This is showing the person who he truly is so that the church may know its proper loving action toward him, whether evangelism (for unbelievers) or edification/restoration (for true believers). And the Bible teaches this in Matthew 18 and many other passages. The church forsook discipline because of unbiblical definition of love so the church’s testimony degraded. Consequently, evangelism is watered down. That is reasonable. We cannot convince the world to enter the church if they don’t see the church having any difference with the world other than religious rituals. No matter how diligent we are in our efforts to save people whom we call ‘unbelievers’ if we live just like them, we will only appear hypocrites to them.
 

For my five years of Christian life, I am both glad and sorrowful to know these. I’m glad because God showed me these errors. I’m sorrowful because these are grave errors of the church I belong and love. I long for a reformation and I know I have some things to do to achieve it. First is to make sure I’ll have a renewed mind and a Spirit-filled life. I must have a sound belief and practice, and still be zealous for the glory of God. Second, as a youth, I should make sure that my generation would also have the same character I desire for myself. This I will do through leadership, teaching, and being an example. Third, I should do my best to strengthen the laymen in all churches as much as possible by promoting holiness just as Wesley did. Lastly, if the Lord will call me, I will enter the seminary and become a devoted professor and scholar or a Scripture-saturated pastor.

----------------------------------------

Some may doubt my credibility but they should first evaluate this young man's theology ere abandoning his opinion. I pray that UMC would someday be blessed with renewal, reformation and revival.