John Wesley/Methodist view on the thief on the cross

[posthuman]

Hello😀....Not to take away anything from a respected Theologian, but...
I personally sometimes have difficulty with acceptance of unqualified information sources made as blank open statements requiring one to presume accuracy especially if the information is a factual foundation or keystone of establishing a conclusion.
Obviously Jesus Christ possessed the ability to know whether " ( if we may call him so because a later writer discovered he wasn't and was an honest and respectable person )"......
Without source reference requires a leap of faith...😀
It may well be true and established fact but, it just isn't something conclusive I personally have had exposure to if it be so.....
It is an interesting consideration that I have contemplated just haven't sought an answer for....
Because it is a presumption that requires further qualification in absence of source reference.
It IMO without verification treads dangerously on waters of presumption. ....potentially unconfirmed but logically a keystone to arring at or deriving a conclusion.
The message would have improved depth measure and weight if it didn't require a supposition presumption of foundational fact.....
Either way I would still maintain God is Judge having the ability and insight to know the heart of all man in this case " the thief " and the authority and perspective of High Priest to make the on the spot determination.
We as common man absent divine enlightenment would not be capable of making such a determination.
Only grasping the concept as a potential possibility. And the whole concept opens the door to other questions.
1. Is coming to believe itself not a works of faith itself ?
2. If so then is it a works of God alone or does it not require our work of participation? .
3. Is faith itself not a continuation of works both within an without which requires practice and mutual interaction with God and others ?
4. If the thief be respectable or potentially righteous would even a works of repentance be expected of him.....?
5. Were not the recorded words of the thief alone a works of faith that have stood as everlasting testimony , that have witnessed to many of the merciful saving grace?
6. Which is a more powerful knowing him as a thief or respectable or not knowing at all ?
7. If he be only a thief does that send a dangerous conclusion to be made by the reckless who would conclude to wait to the last minute who might get told you never hung on a cross next to me And I never knew you?
8. To believe is to work to repent is it not....?
9. Which is a work of faith is it not?
10...Faith is a union in which we continue to practice work inwardly ourselves and allow God to work inwardly with us to make us able of outward works....is it not ?
11. If we are born under and into the curse of sin into a world full of sin with an unavoidable sinful flesh nature we must aspire to cast off and overcome then do we ever become 100 percent perfected and sanctified where faith is never a continuing works of repentance ? ( scripture-Christ says only the Father ....is ( ("Good" ) Christ rejected being called good probably due to being in a fleshly body nature. which tends to indicate a sinful nature of flesh.
12. I would presume if we were ever able to attain perfection in these temporary flesh....then people would be magicly dissappearing because God would spare them the first death ?
( but whom among the best of us has not had an impure thought ) ?
13...Be he thief or be he not, the thief ......has testified to the whole of the world!
Has he not ?
A grand works of witness and testimonial I would SAY!
14.....Many will condemn or argue against my next thought I will presume.....but
IMO.....You can not seperate the elements of faith....everyday you will read people going to great lengths of discourse to SEPERATE....
ARGUE.....PROVE...REPROVE...
seperation of faith elements.
Do you carry your good works forward with you like your bank account...do you reach a place where you have paid your accounts in full ?
What is the price of $alvation and eternal life....?
Is not each day a new day a new chance at doing what is right ....reclaiming your gifts and reworking them inwardly and outwardly with his blessing of his power working in you....whether it be for believing more or repenting a resurfaced memory of a past transgression the father might be using to do inwards workings ....?
Do we not reconfirm with works within each day....can we say that those aren't works of faith as well....
Who decides what the greater works are....?
If the Father do a greater works in you than you do outwardly in the world what makes anyone think they could ever repay him to begin with when no man can outgive God ....
To speculate the thief would even need to justify the merciful gift of Grace received from God himself divinely directly and in person by a works of faith.
I am sorry to tell you but it is to speculate.....
A BLASPHEMY......because God is God....what he sayssayssays......isisisis...IS!
If Christ said there is a thief or otherwise in Paradise then
That's where he is and there is no need to re-judge Gods judgment....second guess it or box God in and say hey God this thief needs to justify his salvation and faith by good works.....
IMHO....you shouldn't pursue or speculate this...
And I believe I have shewn how the thief did do a Grand works of faith on the whole world which testifies also that as I said you can not seperate as so many insist on doing the elements of Faith.
All praise and glory be to God our Father in the name of Jesus Christ our Savior!😀

yes i read it all ↑

i wanted to say, i think you misunderstood Wesley here --

a man may be justified without them, as was the thief upon the cross (if we may call him so; for a late writer has discovered that he was no thief, but a very honest and respectable person!) but he cannot be justified without faith; this is impossible.

i think what he put in parentheses there, is a sarcastic jab at some other theologian who worked himself into a corner with his doctrine, either directly making the claim, or making other claims from which the inescapable conclusion is, that the thief on the cross must have been falsely accused. which is malarkey, because scripture says he was a thief, and the thief himself says he deserves his punishment.
you can see where someone would put themselves in such a position - arguing that works accomplish salvation, or some physically manifested penitent life - where are the thief's works? i've met multiple people on CC over the years i have been here who say he must have been baptized before he was crucified, because those people have worked themselves into similar theological corners by holding this idea that regeneration occurs in the H2O and there's no salvation without it. for example.

so Wesley isn't saying the thief wasn't a thief. he's poking at some 'late writer' and talking about it as though it's an absurd conclusion.

the other thing i wanted to say is that this --

11. If we are born under and into the curse of sin into a world full of sin with an unavoidable sinful flesh nature we must aspire to cast off and overcome then do we ever become 100 percent perfected and sanctified where faith is never a continuing works of repentance ? ( scripture-Christ says only the Father ....is ( ("Good" ) Christ rejected being called good probably due to being in a fleshly body nature. which tends to indicate a sinful nature of flesh.

is blasphemy. i'm sure you mean it unintentionally; i think you just haven't thought this through.
that's actually incredibly common and taught all over the place, and repeated by many people who also, i think, don't intend to blaspheme, but it is blasphemy.

Christ is God.
He is never 'not God'
God is good. He is always good.
Jesus is not saying He is not good. He calls Himself the Shepherd, the Good One.
He asks this man why he calls Him good, and declares that only God is good. this man had called Him teacher and asked about what works he could do to inherit life. this man did not believe Christ is God; Christ is correcting him, because knowledge of God - knowing Him, that He is God, that He is good - is eternal life. Jesus is simultaneously declaring Himself as who He is, answering this man's question, and teaching him.
God is not saying 'i am no good'

please think and pray about it
i mean you no harm at all

 

[SIMON55]

Experiences never trump God’s word.

Tell that to the apostles that wrote his word about their experiences down.....
Tell that to Paul after the road to Damascus....
Everyone on this thread is prejudiced against the very things they believe in that they have heard about others seeing. That is exactly what the word that you have heard is written about. They saw they wrote you heard you believed....
Eyes and Ears...not just ears.
IF anyone be blind and can't see God then they contradict the WORD of God for it is written the evidence is everywhere for the eye to behold....
He who denies the eye denies the Word.

 

[SIMON55]

yes i read it all ↑

i wanted to say, i think you misunderstood Wesley here --



i think what he put in parentheses there, is a sarcastic jab at some other theologian who worked himself into a corner with his doctrine, either directly making the claim, or making other claims from which the inescapable conclusion is, that the thief on the cross must have been falsely accused. which is malarkey, because scripture says he was a thief, and the thief himself says he deserves his punishment.
you can see where someone would put themselves in such a position - arguing that works accomplish salvation, or some physically manifested penitent life - where are the thief's works? i've met multiple people on CC over the years i have been here who say he must have been baptized before he was crucified, because those people have worked themselves into similar theological corners by holding this idea that regeneration occurs in the H2O and there's no salvation without it. for example.

so Wesley isn't saying the thief wasn't a thief. he's poking at some 'late writer' and talking about it as though it's an absurd conclusion.

the other thing i wanted to say is that this --



is blasphemy. i'm sure you mean it unintentionally; i think you just haven't thought this through.
that's actually incredibly common and taught all over the place, and repeated by many people who also, i think, don't intend to blaspheme, but it is blasphemy.

Christ is God.
He is never 'not God'
God is good. He is always good.
Jesus is not saying He is not good. He calls Himself the Shepherd, the Good One.
He asks this man why he calls Him good, and declares that only God is good. this man had called Him teacher and asked about what works he could do to inherit life. this man did not believe Christ is God; Christ is correcting him, because knowledge of God - knowing Him, that He is God, that He is good - is eternal life. Jesus is simultaneously declaring Himself as who He is, answering this man's question, and teaching him.
God is not saying 'i am no good'

please think and pray about it
i mean you no harm at all

I dont take offense to it and I see what you are saying and I meant know blasphemy I believe Christs word that he and the father are one I dont differintiate a difference.
I believe all that John wrote about the Word being God.
I did misunderstand about the thief because I had forgotten some of the dialogue that occurred.
Thanks for the redirection.
😀

 

[Locoponydirtman]

the thief, with the confession of his mouth, showed that he believes Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Lord of heaven and earth -

he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"​

(Luke 23:42) ​

this doesn't come from man, but from God

“But what about you?” He asked. “Who do you say I am?”​

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.”​

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven."​

(Matthew 16:15-17) ​

this knowledge of God -- it doesn't come through, from or by the flesh of anyone

No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father ​

except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.​

(Matthew 11:27) ​

this knowledge - that the kingdom is Christ's, and that He goes to sit on the throne - that He is the Everlasting Father, having taken upon flesh - this is the rock upon which the church is built. the knowledge that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. and this knowledge, to know Him, is eternal life

this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. ​

(John 17:3) ​

this is salvation: to know Him: Yeshua, 'Yah is Salvation'
and this is a gift, not of works. no one can boast. no one knows Him except who He chooses to reveal Himself to -- and He is lifted up, just as the serpent in the wilderness, that we all may look to Him, and live!

Why did you reply to me to say this?
I said all of the work of salvation is done by God, himself.

 

[posthuman]

Why did you reply to me to say this?
I said all of the work of salvation is done by God, himself.

yes i agreed with what you wrote -- your post looked like a good launch pad, is all

☺

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Tell that to the apostles that wrote his word about their experiences down.....
Tell that to Paul after the road to Damascus....
Everyone on this thread is prejudiced against the very things they believe in that they have heard about others seeing. That is exactly what the word that you have heard is written about. They saw they wrote you heard you believed....
Eyes and Ears...not just ears.
IF anyone be blind and can't see God then they contradict the WORD of God for it is written the evidence is everywhere for the eye to behold....
He who denies the eye denies the Word.

The reason it is said scripture Trump's experience is because it does. However the number of people who have experiences that are clearly not biblical or Godly is astronomical. I even know of people who say they met God and he is an alien, and then there is the whole Mormon deal about Joseph and the angel and the golden plates and all that jazz.

 

[Guojing]

Firstly, I attend a Methodist Church and not that many people have read Wesley.

I agree for the most part with your analysis with the exception that works is needed for salvation.

I can't speak for Wesley and what he meant by his words, but I believe he did preach incorrectly until Aldergate when his heart was strangely warmed and he realized that it was faith alone that saves.

We are called yo do good works but I don't think that is tied to our justification or salvation but a result of salvation. We work because we have already been cleansed and justified. It's part of our sanctification.

Nice to hear your sharing, thanks. From my experience in the Methodist Church, which I was at during my school years, since they set up many good schools in my country, this view that “salvation is a gift but sanctification is a work” is very popular and was frequently taught to us. Many of them would definitely reject OSAS and even now, many of the matured Methodists in bible study groups, aged 60 and above, mostly have that view too.

So I was curious about the Methodist's view towards sola fide and, after doing some research, came to this background from John Wesley. So from your point, can I conclude that the views of John Wesley is not compulsory doctrine for the Methodist Church? Who is John Wesley to the Methodist Church? Is he the "main guy" to go for Methodist doctrine?

 

[tourist]

It appears that the Methodists believe that while salvation is by grace thru faith, you need to show works as proof that your faith is indeed genuine.

In my opinion, if one holds the view that salvation is free but sanctification is a work that we do, you have to have a suitable answer to the "thief on the cross". Jesus granted salvation to the thief but he clearly had no opportunity to perform any works to show that the faith he had was truly genuine and saving.

Here, John Wesley made a rather ingenious point in my opinion,

"But does not God command us to repent also? Yea, and to 'bring forth fruits meet for repentance'--to cease, for instance, from doing evil, and learn to do well? And is not both the one and the other of the utmost necessity, insomuch that if we willingly neglect either, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all? But if this be so, how can it be said that faith is the only condition of justification?" God does undoubtedly command us both to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; which if we willingly neglect, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all: therefore both repentance, and fruits meet for repentance, are, in some sense, necessary to justification. But they are not necessary in the same sense with faith, nor in the same degree. Not in the same degree; for those fruits are only necessary conditionally; if there be time and opportunity for them. Otherwise a man may be justified without them, as was the thief upon the cross (if we may call him so; for a late writer has discovered that he was no thief, but a very honest and respectable person!) but he cannot be justified without faith; this is impossible. Likewise, let a man have ever so much repentance, or ever so many of the fruits meet for repentance, yet all this does not at all avail; he is not justified till he believes.

How John Wesley reconciled the thief on the cross, in my opinion, is based on this paragraph. Here is how I understand his argument:

1. Both faith and works are necessary for justification.
2. But faith is more necessary compared to works. Faith is necessary unconditionally/absolutely.
3. Works are only necessary in a conditional sense, provided there is time and opportunity to do them.
4. The thief on the cross had neither the time, nor the opportunity to do works, so he is excused from them.
5. For the rest of us however, we do not have that excuse, so works become necessary for our justification.

This is a rather ingenious argument, I have to say. So, after examining John Wesley’s views, I can conclude that the Methodists believe that Jesus’s work on the cross grant all believers the garment of salvation but to be righteous, there is some dependence on human effort.

What do the rest think? Any Methodists in the house?

Works are a manifestation of salvation. If the thief on the cross was allowed to live then there would have been works. Works in themselves are separate from salvation. What is necessary is repentance and not the works themselves.

 

[tourist]

I haven't really studied Wesley because I don't agree with what he says. And I definitely haven't agreed with what Weslyians have explained to me.

I think, instead of excusing the thief on the cross, we should study what happened there.

The thief repented. The thief saw that what he had done was not good, that he deserved his punishment, but he turned away from his own wisdom and his own strength and turned to the Lord Jesus Christ instead.

I think that the Lord draws us to this conclusion. Or it is so obvious that we can't help but see it.

The bible says that God isn't a respecter of persons. So keeping that in mind, if God has done something for one and hasn't placed conditions of work on what He has done for the one, then there is no reason why He won't do that for another or for all.


So, on the one hand, I don't agree that works are necessary for salvation.

On the other hand, I do think that works will follow salvation as fruit from abiding in Christ. But what that work looks like is up to God and not up to people.

You summed up the situation with the thief on the cross in a nutshell.

 

[Guojing]

I didn't read your whole post, but I disagree that faith is a work. We are to work out our faith, but faith is a GIFT given to us. Gifts are NOT works.

From my experience, there are a number of people who say salvation is by faith only but you need to show works after you are saved, as a proof that the faith is genuine, saving faith. That is how many of them, in my opinion, "sneak works in thru the backdoor".

So pure sola fide would say

Salvation = Faith - Works.

While Methodists would say

Faith = Salvation + Works

 

[Guojing]

Works are a manifestation of salvation. If the thief on the cross was allowed to live then there would have been works. Works in themselves are separate from salvation. What is necessary is repentance and not the works themselves.

How would you be sure of this, the claim in bold?

 

[tourist]

How would you be sure of this, the claim in bold?

Because it says in the bible that works are a manifestation of salvation in the repentance process. I really don't have to be sure of it as I am positive that God is sure on this regarding the thief on the cross.

 

[Guojing]

Because it says in the bible that works are a manifestation of salvation in the repentance process. I really don't have to be sure of it as I am positive that God is sure on this regarding the thief on the cross.

Someone once said this to me, which fits our current discussion.

If every time someone repented and received Christ by faith as his savior, will we be doing him a favor by taking a gun and killing him right there and then?

When we do that, he has full assurance that he will be saved, since he will not face any trials and testing that might cause him not to manifest works, for one reason or another.

 

[tourist]

Someone once said this to me, which fits our current discussion.

If every time someone repented and received Christ by faith as his savior, will we be doing him a favor by taking a gun and killing him right there and then?

When we do that, he has full assurance that he will be saved, since he will not face any trials and testing that might cause him not to manifest works, for one reason or another.

He already has full assurance of salvation. No, you would not be doing him a favor but rather a great disservice as well as murdering him. Whoever told you this is sick in the head and nothing this person says should be taken seriously.

 

[Guojing]

He already has full assurance of salvation. No, you would not be doing him a favor but rather a great disservice as well as murdering him. Whoever told you this is sick in the head and nothing this person says should be taken seriously.

But can you understand what his point is, in the light of how John Wesley excused the "thief on the cross" from works?

 

[tourist]

But can you understand what his point is, in the light of how John Wesley excused the "thief on the cross" from works?

I think that there are times when things are over-analyzed.

 

[devoiler]

1. I was out of body.
2. I was in a heaven somewhere.
3. I was divinely healed and baptized directly by God.
4. I did not deserve it.
5. That is the truth so help me God.

Thank you for sharing your testimony. Once upon a time I would have put up a mental barrier to what you are saying. Not now though. I'm wondering if you had the chance to 'feel' anything. Did you feel something like limitless love or were you in a state of awe?

 

[Hevosmies]

God does the saving! not us!

 

[devoiler]

I suggest there are too many 'rules' in the question and way of thinking in general. If a person fills themselves with the love that Jesus showed us then everything will work out for that person.

 

[SIMON55]

The hands of God? Tell me about this God whose hands you saw.

Same one you have heard of washes away afflictions with baptism causes 180 * psychic change gives peace comfort and understanding.