Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Just finished watching 7 hours of back-to-back videos on the history of the church and the reformation movement :-) Learned a ton... You are an awesome teacher, Professor Reeves! Thank you & God Bless, Suzie
This is about the third or fourth video, of these videos, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude. I have studied some of these topics before but the way the information is presented is fantastic and simple without sacrificing the essentials. Great stuff Mr. Reeves, thank you.
That is some profound stuff there. I will need to view it again. Free will verses Sovereignty of God is a simplistic way of viewing it all. How does one reconcile the two. Knowing the base sinner that I am I fear having to depend on free will for I know that I would fail. Therefore it is more comforting (personally) to depend on the loving and sovereign Grace of God.
my prayers and questions are answere by all of your videos and the holy Spirit manifest and i just give my praise and worship,, thank professor, Godspeed
Good video, however, one is left with the question of the "exact" use of the word "perfection" in Wesley's theology? Truly, I believe either we have not reached into his mind accurately, or he has defined the word "perfection" to really mean "progressive, continual, holiness of life." Well, in that sense, it reflects the ideal of the Catholic saints of "detachment." What an area for further research and study!
Wesley had a much more optimistic anthropology and focused on God's love. Luther had a more pessimistic attitude overall. That's why he was allergic to talking about sanctification.
I have no idea if there is a doctrinal name for my belief (Perhaps you can enlighten me?) but my own understanding is, that there are described in the Word, TWO kinds of works. Those of man (Which are deceptive and therefore cannot be trusted) and those of the Spirit, which are of God and driven BY God. I believe this was the point James was making in his letter and one which Christ Himself made over and over again. The Church, it seems to me, has become rather paranoid on these matters; seeing all discussion of works as evil and not making the distinction I have made in my own beliefs on these matters.The problem, as I see it, with the Churches position on this, is that it encourages idle, lacklustre and powerless Christianity. Christians become nothing more than pew fodder and ineffective sheep, rather than a Royal Priesthood. I can see, from a leadership point of view, why this would be of personal benefit to their position in the current hierarchy, but I also see this view as the reason so many Churches appear to have their graveyards indoors. I would welcome the views of others on this matter.
+Denrypaul Dalilan // Hey there! I don't have a long series, but I have an overview of their origins from the Radical Reformation: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WV17mlmGnnc.html In the new year I am planning a series where I do 4 videos on the history of each major denomination group (Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.) and will do a lot more there. :)
Whitefield was very charitable with the Wesleys, as Dr. Reeves details. It is important to note that other Calvinists broke fellowship with Arminians because they viewed them unbelievers. Throughout history the doctrine of free will was condemned numerous times, and at several councils including Carthage, Ephesus and Orange. Because Arminius lived many centuries later, it wasn´t until the Synod of Dort that Arminianism was specifically condemned. Luther, Calvin, Owen, and Edwards all viewed arminians as unbelievers. Whitefield obiously disagreed. Each person needs to determine what is the Gospel, what is necessary to believe to be a Christian. This will determine with whom you have fellowship. Luther makes a strong case in The Bondage of the Will for the belief in predestination as being fundamental to a true Gospel understanding.
+Ryan Reeves Well I guess overall what I'm curious on is, did he believe a saved believer could fall away from the faith thus forfeiting his salvation, for refusing to remain in belief? Cause some people don't believe a believer can fall away but arent comfortable using the term "once saved always saved" cause it looks like it gives a pass for lawlessness.
+Troy Dellinger Yes, He did believe a believer can forfeit His salvation. Wesley stated: “Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us, that no virgin’s lamp can go out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be cut off from unfruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name blotted out of God’s book! They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor; nobody can ever “receive the grace of God in vain”; “bury his talents”; “neglect such great salvation”; trifle away “a day of grace”; “look back” after putting his hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can “grieve the Spirit” till He is “quenched,” and strives no more, nor “deny the Lord that bought them”; nor “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. They use reams of paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever “cast forth,” he was never in, and “if one ever withered,” he was never green. John 15:1-6; and that “if any man draws back,” it proves that he never had anything to draw back from. Heb. 10:38,39; that if one ever “falls away into spiritual darkness,” he was never enlightened. Heb 6:4-6; that if you “again get entangled in the pollutions of the world,” it shows that you never escaped. 2 Pet 2:20; that if you “put salvation away” you never had it to put away, and if you make shipwreck of faith, there was no ship of faith there!! In short they say: If you get it, you can’t lose it; and if you lose it you never had it. May God save us from accepting a doctrine, that must be defended by such fallacious reasoning!” - John Wesley
Wesley's life is a story of searching and evolution as he was exposed to Luther's writings, the Morovians and study in Germany. He spoke so much it's easy to cherry pick his words. His young life was sincere but immature but keep in mind his strong Anglican upbringing and education. He was (seems to me) concerned about living as holy a life as possible, hence his first road with an organized approach to personal worship. But he changed especially after he started associating with Morovians in England. But he still wanted to know more and went to Germany to study. I'm not real familiar with his study in Europe or to what degree it shaped his theology.
He believed that one who is saved by the shedding blood of Jesus Christ has the power to reject him later in his life. Thus, this means a Jesus's blood was temporary which is completely unbiblical. It is a shame most evangelicals follow this. This was the utmost important issue for Luther writing the Bondage of the Will against the teaching of Erasmus. This was the core point of Reformation in the eyes of Luther.
At the 20 minute point, you brought up a HUGE confusion that I think Martin Luther started, and that is equating WORKS OF THE LAW = GOOD WORKS. Now I recognize you Dr. Reeves are just presenting Luther's viewpoint, not necessarily your view. I I grew up a very confused protestant myself, but these past five years spending lots of time frequently reviewing 2nd century Ante Nicene Father's writings and even a few that didn't make it into the 10 vol set. They are NOT the same thing. As Peter says at the close of 2 Peter 3 about Paul's writings being misunderstood and used by wolves in sheeps clothing, likely from church history speaking of the Gnostics and Judaizers, to bring about the doctrines of demons, Romans 2-4 unveils that Paul is called esoterically "Works of the Law" circumcision, as was the seal of the Mosaic covenant, and hence, as Justin Martyr explained to the Jews in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, this cannot save a person. The Epistle of Barnabas has helped me to see that the Works of the Law is an idiomatic saying referring to what Paul discusses in Colossians as signs or practices because of Israel's sins like Sabbaths, clean and unclean foods, circumcision, certain feast days or festivals. All of these instituted, albeit foreshadowing things about Christ too in God's manifold wisdom, they were not Works of Righteousness, but works of the Law that had a purpose Pre-Christ for Israel only. The NT makes a careful distinction when using the word ERGON in Greek (or works) as meaning Jewish rites versus righteous acts of loving your neighbor as yourself. For me, the early Prenicene christians make quite clear, illuminating for me what the NT really intends and says, about this distinction. Looking forward to hearing your view on this, more so that Martin Luther, for whom I hold no admiration at all. Particularly due to his casting his vote for the killing of anabaptists (martyrs) and hate filled writings at the close of his life toward Jews, which was used a fuel for Nazi Germany and Hitler's power to brainwash the nation to do what they did. But interested in your view Dr. Reeves. This is my only 2nd lecture I have heard from you, but appreciate your style of presentation. God bless you sir as you continue to seek and broadcast truth from the Word (Logos), the Son of God, the teacher.
It seems to me that what was lacking in those gentlemen seeking perfection was wisdom. And wisdom can also be given to us by the Holy Spirit. Once we have wisdom, perfection is irrelevant.
