In the usual schema, there are four views of the Lord's Supper: 1. The **Memorialist/Zwinglian/Baptist** view. Jesus is not present in the elements, but believers reap a spiritual benefit from partaking because they remember his death. 2. The **Calvinist/reformed/"spiritual presence"** view. Christ's body and blood are spiritually consumed by the communicants as they physically partake of the bread and wine. 3. The **Lutheran/"consubstantiation"/"in, with, and under"/sacramental union"** view. Christ is united to the elements. 4. The **Catholic view ("transubstantiation")**. When the elements are blessed, they become Christ's body and blood. Sometimes a fifth view is considered, that of the **Orthodox**, who are close to Catholicism but don't like to explain it in Aristotelian terms. (If you feel any of these descriptors are inaccurate, you're probably right. Please don't get too hung up on any of these definitions. If you're unfamiliar with any of these views, please research them for yourself.) My question is, which of these did John Wesley believe? I suppose it's possible that he would be hard to categorize here; if that's the case, I'll be satisfied with an answer stating which view he's *closest* to, and how his views differ from that one. A good answer will include direct quotes from Wesley.

The [Wesleyan Quadrilateral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral) > explicates the Methodist belief of prima scriptura. This method bases its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development. These four sources are chiefly scripture, along with tradition, reason, and Christian experience. > **Scripture** > Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20–23; Rom. 8:3–4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25–27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11–14; I John 3:8; 4:17. > > **Tradition** > Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree". Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in his glory and might. > > **Reason** > Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion, Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles". He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness. > > **Experience** > Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy". Again, Wesley insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. What Christianity promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Regarding the experience dimension, John Wesley strongly believed in justification and sanctification, and the Christian experience of holiness, happiness, peace, and love (paraphrasing the last paragraph in the previous quote). However, I was curious about John Wesley's view on spiritual experiences specifically, and according to the article [*Wesley, the Almost Charismatic*](https://firebrandmag.com/articles/wesley-the-almost-charismatic) : > So, what are the results of our DNA test? Is Wesley a charismatic? Did he hold to the belief and practice that the gifts of the Spirit are normative in the life of the believer or at least for himself? **Wesley did not seem to espouse or teach the notion that supernatural manifestations of the Spirit are normative for the believer, which characterizes PCR Christians. Yet, in practice, the charismata clearly operated through Wesley and the early Methodists in quite a regular or normative manner. With that said, Wesley can be considered a charismatic on one of two counts, making him half a charismatic, or playing on Wesley’s “an almost Christian” – “an almost charismatic.”** The four inferences drawn from Wesley concerning the gifts of the Spirit further serve as correctives for a proper balance for Wesleyans of all stripes, who often neglect the miraculous power of God, and for today’s PCR movement, which often lacks a robust doctrine of sanctification and sound theology for its supernatural experiences. Simply put, all of the work of the Spirit should be normative in our lives, including the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. The Spirit gives gifts to and produces fruit in every true believer. No Christian should ever settle for anything less than the promises of God in scripture. Yet, in agreement with the scriptures and Wesley, the various operations of the Spirit should be prioritized and given their proper place in the scheme of salvation. We note in 1 Corinthians 13 that the fruit of love, which is eternal, is greater than the gifts of prophecy or tongues, which are temporal. Wesley’s holiness hermeneutic, resonating with scripture, also prioritizes character over charisma, fruit over gifts, and holiness over power. And regarding the apparent cessation of charismatic experiences among Christians over the course of history, John Wesley offered this explanation: > It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed,) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. **The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left**. > > Source: [The Sermons of John Wesley - Sermon 89](https://www.whdl.org/sites/default/files/resource/book/EN_John_Wesley_089_more_excellent_way.htm) In other words, John Wesley placed high importance on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. When it comes to the realm of experience, he particularly emphasized the pursuit of holiness and the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit. Moreover, he remained receptive to the display of charismatic gifts, attributing their decline in church history to the diminishing strength of spiritual fervor in Christians, perhaps due to an increasing reliance on institutional structures. Which denominations hold similar views? --- Additional resources: - Blog post: [John Wesley and Spiritual Gifts](https://craigladams.com/blog/john-wesley-and-spiritual-gifts/) - Journal article: [Wesley and Charisma: An Analysis of John Wesley's View of Spiritual Gifts](https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=aussj) In particular, the last article concludes: > The gifts of the Spirit combined with the doctrine of priesthood of all believers were one of the main axioms of early Reformation. However, later writings of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions neglected both the idea of the priesthood of all believers and of the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts, thus minimizing experiential aspects of the Christian religion. **Wesley’s break with cessationism is variously interpreted today. Some claim that Wesley set the stage for the practices of the modern Charismatic movement. Others argue that Wesley’s emphasis on Spiritual gifts and implication of laity in the spiritual affairs was just a marginal note in his theology of holy life. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Wesley saw the gifts of the Spirit as a natural part of Christian experience connecting it with the doctrine of sanctification. For him, the lack or rarity of manifestations of the Spirit during long centuries of Christian dispensation was due to the declining spiritual life of the Church. In essence, the love of many “grew cold”. Wesley’s focal desire was to restore the piety and love of early Christians through indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Experience of spiritual assurance, fruits of the Spirit, gifts and even supernatural manifestations of the Spirit were for Wesley, a natural consequence of God’s power among true Christians, working for the edification of the saints and the spreading of the Gospel.** It is important to note that although Wesley saw extraordinary gifts as a legitimate Christian experience, his treatment of gifts was different in regards to the blessing of assurance and the fruits of the Spirit. While he actively sought for spiritual assurance and for the fruits of Spirit (love, peace, meekness and so on), Wesley was more passive in expecting the manifestations of gifts of the Spirit. His main argument in regards to the gifts was that “they are available for Christians today” but he never made it a matter of doctrine to receive them, as it was the case with fruits of the Spirit or the assurance of the justification.

[*The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley*](http://danielrjennings.org/tsoojw2.pdf) , written by Daniel R. Jennings, claims to be a compilation of John Wesley's supernatural experiences. The book claims to be compiling these stories from Wesley's journal. Is John Wesley's journal available? How authentic is this book by Daniel Jennings?

There are some that seem to say that he doesn't and then some seems to say that he does (p.19) so I wonder what is going on here. I understand that there are different kinds of ways to explain how guilt is imputed (realist vs federal, etc) but regardless, did John Wesley believe in imputation of guilt? If the answer is yes, I have no further question. But *if the answer is **no***, then what do Wesleyans mean when they say baptism 'cleansed the guilt of original sin'? Links and references are appreciated!

John Wesley published a modified Book of Common Prayer under the name Sunday Service of the Methodists , in which he says in the preface: > I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England. And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it not only pure, but strong and elegant, in the highest degree. > > Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, except in the under-mentioned instances: > > 1. Most of the holy-days (so called) are omitted, as at present answering no valuable end. > > 2. The service of the LORD's DAY, the length of which has been often complained of, is considerably shortened. > > 3. Some sentences in the offices of Baptism, and for the Burial of the Dead, are omitted; and, > > ***4. Many Psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation.*** > > JOHN WESLEY. > > Bristol, Sept. 9, 1784. Which Psalms did he leave out, and which parts of others for being "highly improper," and why are/were they considered "highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation"? Are these same Psalms and parts of Psalms still avoided by Methodists today in their congregational worship?

In 1778, John Wesley published his *Thoughts upon Slavery*, where he wrote: >The variety of ways that slavery appears make it almost impossible to convey a just notion of it ... First in what manner are they procured? Part of them by fraud ... But far more have been procured by force. The Christians landing upon their coasts, seized as many of them as they could find - men, women and children - and transported them to America ... It was some time before the Europeans found a more compendious way of procuring them: by prevailing upon them to make war in each other and sell their prisoners. Till then they seldom had any wars, all was peace and quiet. But the white man taught them drunkeness and avarice and hired them to sell one another. Nay, by this means even their kings are induced to sell their subjects ... As for the punishments that are inflicted upon them, say Sir Hans Sloan, some are gelded, others have half a foot chopped off ... others cut off an ear, and constrain them to broil and eat them ... > >How can Britons can so readily admit a change in their disposition and sentiments as to practise in America what they abhorred and detested in Britain can be accounted for no other principle than of being the natural effect of slave-keeping which as the celebrated Montesquieu observes 'insensibly accustoms those who are in the practise of it, to want all moral virtues, to become haughty, hasty, hard-hearted, passionate, voluptuous and cruel.' More, forty years earlier when he had been in the United States with his brother on missionary work in 1737-38 he recorded in his journal the barbaric treatment that: >daily practise upon their fellow creatures [inclufing whipping, driving nails through their ears and drawing teeth] ... even giving a white child a slave of his own to tyrannise ... [describing them] as shocking instances of diabolical cruelty Given the interest that Britain had in maintaining the slave trade it's not suprising to discover that whenever Wesley preached against the slavery trade he put his life at considerable risk. For example, when he preached in Bristol, one of the foremost slave-trading ports in Britain, a disturbance broke out. **Q. Given this, what compelled Wesley to take on slavery and become one of the early adopters of abolition?** **Moreover, given the shocking scenes of 'diabolical cruelty' he saw in the then slave owning United States why did it take so long to take up the cause?** **Finally, how significant was his preaching in the context of the abolitionist movement - my own understanding - from being told this at school - was that Wilberforce was the main force behind it**

In his book, _The Attributes of God_, A. W. Tozer mentions that John Wesley had a bad relation with his wife and because of this failed marriage, it is said that he (sometimes) used to pray in Latin so that his wife won't understand what he was praying about. The version of the book I have has no bibliography, so I am looking for the primary source of these affirmations. > Some men have wives that are wildcats—difficult to get along with—and they think they are tempted above all others. John Wesley was married to a wildcat, and she didn’t even have her claws trimmed. But God got John Wesley through all right. > > He used to kneel down and pray in Latin so his wife wouldn’t be able to know what he was saying. And while he prayed, she threw old shoes at his head! Not a very nice family affair, but that’s the way they got on. > > The time came when Wesley said good-bye to his wife and went off preaching, even though she didn’t want him to. And they never did get together much after that, though he saw to it that she was taken care of. > > She stayed home and grumbled as he went out everywhere preaching the gospel and transforming England. Then one day he was riding along on his horse, meditating or praying, looking up in the sky. Someone rode up alongside him and said, “Mr. Wesley, your wife is dead.” And he looked down and said, “Oh, she died, did she?” And he went back to looking up. Wesley got along all right, in spite of the wife he had. > > https://www.worldevangelismcenter.org/john-wesleys-wife/ > and http://www.worldevangelism.net/john-wesleys-wife/ What is the source of the idea that John Wesley used to pray in Latin so that his spouse won't understand?

In one of his last letters to Wilberforce, John Wesley wrote in 1791: >Dear Sir, > >Unless the divine power has raised you to be as *Athanasius contra Mundum*, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing the inexcreble villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and the devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O, be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it. > >... > >That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things, is the prayer of, dear sir, > >Your affectionate servant, John Wesley **Q. In this letter what is the meaning and significance of the phrase 'Athanasius contra Mundum' in the context of his (and Wilberforces) anti-slavery crusade?**

In 1964, Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler outlined the [Wesleyan Quadrilateral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral) in his introduction to John Wesley's anthology of works. This establishes a hermeneutic framework in which truth, revelation and so forth are interpreted through the lenses of Scripture and Tradition, reason and Experience. Similarly, Jewish Scholarship has a similar framework, [PaRDeS,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)#Remez) an acronym formed from the following hermeneutic approaches: > * Peshat (פְּשָׁט‎) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning. > * Remez (רֶמֶז‎) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense. > * Derash (דְּרַשׁ‎) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences. > * Sod (סוֹד‎) (pronounced with a long O as in 'soda') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation. Have there been any Weslyan theologians and scholars that have sought to compare and equate the two frameworks and methodologies.

It is well-known that John Wesley was an adherent and defender of Arminian soteriology. I have noticed that it is often assumed, and occasionally explicitly asserted, that his brother Charles agreed with him on this point; and yet, I have never seen any actual document or writing or quotation justifying this assertion. Indeed, some verses from some Wesley hymns would appear to indicate a more "monergistic" view of the work of God in saving sinners than the Arminian view; a famous example is the penultimate verse of *And can it be*: >> Long my imprisoned spirit lay >> Fast bound in sin and nature's night; >> Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray, >> I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; >> My chains fell off, my heart was free; >> I rose, went forth and followed Thee. The key point here is that the last three lines are the consequence not of a merely "will-freeing ray" by which it became possible for Wesley now to choose to follow Christ. Rather, the light, freedom and rising in this second half of the verse (remedying the previous lying, bondage and night mentioned in the reverse order in the first half of the verse) are all the consequence of the external intervention of Christ's *quickening* (i.e. making alive) ray; undoubtedly, this life refers to the spiritual life of being in Christ, not merely a new ability to choose God that wasn't there before. But perhaps more striking still is the second verse of the less well-known hymn *Spirit of Faith, Come Down*: >> No one can truly say >> that Jesus is the Lord, >> unless Thou [the Spirit] take the veil away >> and breathe the living Word. >> Then, only then, we feel >> our interest in his blood, >> and cry with joy unspeakable, >> "Thou art my Lord, my God!" The key is the phrase **Then [and] only then, ...** Charles Wesley clearly portrays only two possible scenarios: - In the first scenario, the individual's experience has not yet involved having the Spirit removing the veil and breathing the living Word, and this inherently means that the individual is left unable to say with genuine meaning that Jesus is the Lord, feeling no real interest in His blood. - In the second scenario, the Spirit's work of removing the veil and breathing the living Word *is* applied to the individual, and the consequence of this will be the opposite extreme, namely that the individual responds to the reality of the blood of Christ by crying out with unspeakable joy that Christ is his/her Lord and God. So in view of these, my question is: >> What actual evidence is there that Charles Wesley was Arminian? Please note: I am not just asking for evidence that Wesley wasn't a full-fledged 5-point Calvinist; indeed, the previous verse of the same hymn says that it belongs to the Spirit to give a person eyes to see that He Who died for every sinner died for that person.

John Wesley believed and taught the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, the idea that it is possible for a believer to achieve perfection in this life, based on Bible verses like: >Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. — [1 John 3:9](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-john/3-9.html) and Jesus' command: >Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — [Matthew 5:48](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/5-48.html) Can someone explain what Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification means?

Upon seeing certain statements in John Calvin and John Wesley's writings some have concluded that these men believed Jesus is Michael. What evidence is there to show that John Wesley and John Calvin did not believe that Jesus is Michael? Here are a few references to what John Calvin and John Wesley say. **John Wesley** >Daniel 10:13 Withstood me – God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael – Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained – To counter – work their designs against the people of God. Daniel 10:21 – Michael – Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it. [*source*](http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=da&chapter=010) >Daniel 12:1 - For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. [*source*](http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=da&chapter=012) **John Calvin** >"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." -- > J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. [*source*](http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm) but [*found here*](http://jesus.rlbible.com/?p=674) >"Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people....The angel...calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people" > (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65). [*source*](http://forananswer.blogspot.com/2006/10/did-john-calvin-really-teach-that.html) but [*found here*](http://www.network54.com/Forum/89087/message/1125951931/Unheard+of---)

I've seen a few examples online of people claiming that John Wesley objected to the "hell" clauses of the Athanasian Creed, such as on the [United Methodist Church website](http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/why-do-we-say-creeds) : > United Methodists are not required to believe every word of the affirmations. Church founder, John Wesley himself did not agree with a historic (Athanasian) creed, because he disliked its emphasis on condemning people to hell. Similarly, [on a blog](http://www.andrewthompson.com/creeds/john-wesley-the-trinity-and-the-creeds/) : > Yet later in his life, Wesley became uncomfortable with the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, which have no parallel in the other two creeds. The clauses in question appear to be: > Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. > > they that have done evil, into everlasting fire ([WP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed#Content)) A little bit of research has revealed one place where Wesley discussed the creed, saying: > I, for some time, scrupled subscribing to that creed; till I considered (1.) That these sentences only relate to *wilful*, not involuntary, unbelievers; to those who, having all the means of knowing the truth, nevertheless obstinately reject it: (2.) that they relate only to the *substance* of the doctrine there delivered; not the philosophical *illustrations* of it. ([Sermon 55, On the Trinity](http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-55-On-the-Trinity) ; emphasis in original) This seems to indicate that at some point in the past, he was unsure or unsatisfied with the wording of the creed, but later decided that it was acceptable. I find this weak evidence for the "did not agree" claim. Furthermore, this sermon was delivered in 1775, when Wesley was 71 years old, making me doubt the "later in his life" claim (though he did live another 16 years). My question, therefore, is: **did John Wesley explicitly reject any clause of the Athanasian Creed in any of his writings?** I am particularly interested in knowing if such a rejection exists in his writings between 1775 and his death in 1791.

We see in society today that the bottom third of society are disenfranchied and led by loud mouths with empty promises. (Perhaps this has always been the case). My rough understanding of Wesley from history is that he came during a time of great economic change (The Industrial revolution) when thousands were left out of work, and gave them purpose, and helped them integrate into the new world created by the Industrial Revolution. (sounds familiar to something similar happening today). My question is: **Is there evidence to suggest that John Wesley targeted the bottom third of society?**

Wesleyan perfectionism is often compared to a Calvinist view of sanctification but this question is different. It is designed for someone familiar with Wesleyan theology to provide an explanation that differentiates it from a Catholic view. I am trying to see in what sense is Wesley’s view similar to or different from a Catholic view in terms of sanctification and potential loss of salvation. **Here is what I understand (or think I do):** Catholics believe that when a person is baptized original sin is removed, the soul is renewed, adoption into the family of God has occurred and so long as one does not commit mortal sin, they remain justified - or inwardly just - by the infused good works within them by the grace of God. Wesleyan’s on the other hand hold a protestant justification view, so that sinners are made righteous before any sanctification has occurred, and that justification is an event introducing sanctification. However sanctification once introduced after justification implies a kind of elite level of true holiness that can be habitually attained that should surpass the experience of Prophets and saints prior to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the gift to the church and author of this very remarkable holiness so that a person can be in a sinless state even for longer than a whole day. The new heightened holiness or perfection after Pentecost enables Christians in some sense to be perfect (not just mature). **Here is what I do not understand:** Do Wesleyans consider certain sins committed by those who were truly justified as loosing that justified status, such as Catholics do under the concept of mortal sin? For example, if a Wesleyan commits adultery and dies in that unrepentant sin, does this mean he/she is damned? If not, if there is no 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction what is the trigger that makes a Wesleyan in a state of being ‘out of grace’ such as a Catholic is with un-repented mortal sin? Is the only mortal sin just no longer having faith in Christ at all, or some other more complicated criteria? The reason why I am asking this question is that in terms of Justification it is clear to me Wesleyans and Catholic are at opposite poles of thought. However, when it comes to sanctification and potential loss of salvation, I do not know how they are differentiated from one another. I suspect there are quite different, I just would like to know more from someone who understands Wesleyan theology. I would like this explained in contrast to the basic idea of Catholicism, which is that you are 'just or perfect' so long as you do not commit a mortal sin, upon which time you loose that perfection, justification or grace of God. Of course the methods of restoration to grace from that 'condemned state' would be different, but that is not my immediate question. The question has to do with the criteria for 'falling from grace' not the restoration back. **How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism (which might eventually lead to a total loss of salvation) differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?**

John Wesley was a supporter of free will and in opposition to Calvinism which taught predestination... What was his view on Original sin since by logic the baby is predestined to sin by just being born, no free will?

I have been told that John Wesley read the pre-Schism fathers a lot, and was influenced by them. Is this so, and if so, to what extent and how was his doctrine influenced by them?