wesleyan theology

i'm finding some interesting stuff in this Christian Theology by H Orton Wiley, Methodist/Wesleyan theologian. apparently he believes the Roman Catholic Church is just a extremely divergent branch of the true church, a co-branch with the evangelical protestant church (pg 34, 75). despite admitting that the theologies vary as great as two ideologies can possibly differ, they are both valid (he doesn't say this outright, but if he believes both fall under the heading "Christian church", then that's essentially what he believes).

if the church of Christ has split into two contradictory "branches," one believing that Christ saves us by grace through faith alone, and the other declaring that faith and works justifies, works not as a result of justifying faith, but a requirement for justification, then you have two different churches and Christ's body has split in two. how can anyone teach this? how can anyone read the new testament and proclaim that the Roman Catholic Church is just another "great branch" of the church of Christ?

this is arminian theology. if you believe in free will, you deny the single greatest witness of scripture regarding the character of man. he is a dead-in-his-sins sinner, a slave to sin, unable and unwilling to please God. if you believe free will, then scripture has declared nothing to be foundational, as the unchanging, immovable rock which we are to build our lives upon, and all of the bible is subject to our sinful, self-centered, cowardly whims. God forbid we speak truth to the Catholics and tell them that the "Gospel" they have sends them to hell.

in the same section (Part I:Christian Theology of Volume I) he says that the synod of dort "expressed the positions of the protestant reformation" (pg 75) and then later admits that the synod condemned the teachings of arminius, which "forms the basis of the wesleyan teaching held by the great body of methodism." he admits that classic protestant theology (the formative theology of protestantism, i.e., the Gospel, which distinguished and separated itself from the works-based heresy of the Roman Catholic Church) condemns wesleyanism and methodism. so you admit you're a heretic without knowing you're a heretic. good grief.

in a footnote, the author says that "Scripture is not the essential Word. scripture is truly apprehended and appropriated when in it and through it we see the living and present Christ." uh... be careful here. then he goes on, "This faith [in Christ] once begotten, leads us to a new appropriation of scripture, but also to a new criticism. We find Christ more and more in scripture, and yet we judge scripture more and more by the standard which we find in Christ." (Dorner, History of Protestant Theology 1:231-264)

did you catch that? We judge scripture by what we find in Christ. How do we find Christ? By personal and direct revelation, external to scripture? by tradition? by the gift of tongues? We find Christ in SCRIPTURE, but this guy says we judge scripture by Christ. Where is he finding Christ? Which Christ is he talking about? We judge scripture by itself, by the Spirit, and it is scripture that describes Christ. If scripture reveals Christ, how do you use Christ to criticize scripture? the knowledge of Christ originates from scripture! What is this insane circle of reason he is drowning in? We find Christ in scripture, and then we criticize scripture by that Christ we find in Scripture. Maybe he means we judge scripture by itself, but i don't think he does. that's not what he says. the underlying reasoning behind this book seems to be level 0 toddler logic.

these are the guys who have built the evangelical church for the past century or so, who gave us "Jesus loves everyone," "Accept Him into your heart" and "Give Jesus a chance."