by Peter Phillips
The Critique
One must always tread lightly when dealing with the work of a brilliant man like Wesley, especially by way of critique, but I have several concerns about the doctrine of Christian Perfection. First, I think it would be helpful to point out that the doctrine is hardly objectionable when it is stated in its most simplistic form (i.e. being perfected in the love of God), but once Wesley begins to explain it with more depth, significant worries begin to surface. For instance, one would hardly object to perfection if it is simply the doctrine expressing that we ought to love God and neighbor, for this is summation of God’s will for the Christian life. However, once Wesley begins to define more fully what he means, and he spells out the implications it has on the biblical definition of sin and sanctification, Wesley’s doctrine definitely exceeds the bounds of Scripture. For example, when Wesley asks a series of questions it becomes clearer what he is claiming:
Q. What is implied in being made perfect in love?
A. The loving the Lord our God with all our mind and soul and strength.
Q. Does this imply that he who is thus made perfect cannot commit sin?
A. St. John expressly says it. He cannot commit sin because he is born of God (1 Jn. 3:9).
Q. Does this imply that all inward sin is taken away?
A. Without doubt, or how should he be said to be saved from all his uncleanness?
It is not at all clear that love of God and neighbor excludes the possibility of sin or implies that one can no longer sin, even when expressing this kind of love. Wesley sights 1 John 3:9 as a proof text for his assertions, and believes the faithful interpretation of 1 John is that it is teaching perfection in the Wesleyan sense. However, systematic theologian Wayne Grudem gives some persuasive reasons for thinking differently:
John’s statement that “No one who abides in him sins” (1 Jn. 3:6) does not teach that some of us attain sinless perfection, because the present-tense Greek verbs are better translated as indicating continual or habitual activity: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him” (1 Jn. 3:6 NIV). This is similar to John’s statement a few verse later, “ No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God” (1 Jn. 3:9 NIV). If these verses were taken to prove sinless perfection, they would have to prove it for all Christians, because they talk about what is true of everyone who is born of God, and everyone who has seen Christ and known him.
Therefore, it seems that when one takes into account proper Greek grammar, it excludes the possibility that John is talking about being totally without sin or even without “proper sin,” but rather they are without habitual or continual sin. Furthermore, even if the passage did teach perfection, it would prove too much, because Wesley maintained that only a few, not all Christians experience perfection, and mostly later in life, but before death (Wesley himself denied that he had ever experienced it). Unfortunately for Wesley, the passage clearly indicates that “all who are born of God” experience it, not a select few towards the end of their lives. So, either way one looks at it, the passage does not communicate what Wesley wants it to. Lastly, John rules out the possibility that any Christian can be without sin in his life, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8).
Wesley’s view of sin falls considerably short of the Biblical portrait, and one must always be cautious when someone attempts to minimize the biblical description of sin. It seems quite stretched to call certain sins improper, because we do not intend to do them or they are a result of personality defects, but in order to make his account of perfection attainable, Wesley needed to account for these kinds of sins. Scripture suggests that voluntary and involuntary sins are still sin, and thus, men are held accountable to God for them. Furthermore, one must use the terminology seen in Scripture when defining sin, and Scripture holds men accountable for sin as a propensity and sin as an act. Sin so pervades the human heart that it affects every level of our lives, and even though Christians are no longer slaves of sin, they have by no means entirely eradicated their old nature so as to live perfect this side of heaven (1 Jn. 1:8). Sin pervades the thoughts and intents of the heart, as well as the willful acts of disobedience that arise from them (Jer. 17:9; Jas. 1:13-15). Therefore, to limit proper sin to those acts that are willful transgressions of God’s law is to grossly underestimate the nature of sin and depravity. It seems that Wesley has misdiagnosed the reality and pervasiveness of sin in the life of the Christian. Furthermore, the volitional nature of sinful thoughts, feelings and desires seems to be absent from Wesley’s account, or at least softened to the point of being called personal defects and infirmities.
Finally, part of the confusion in Wesley is a result of his downplaying the already/not yet reality of our salvation from sin. Some passages of Scripture point to the fact that we have already been saved from sin and cleansed entirely, but this is a clearly and illustration of our justification before God, not the possibility of complete sinlessness in the Christian life (Rom. 6:1-14; 1 Jn. 1:6-10). The Christian is dead to sin and totally cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, which is due to the vicarious atonement of Christ, but he is not granted the freedom from the presence of sin in this life. On the other hand, Christians are told that the work is not yet complete in them, and they must pursue their progressive sanctification (Phil. 3:12-13; 2 Cor. 3:18). The Christian is a work in progress, and what God has began in him, he will most certainly consummate. Which brings us to the last point, glorification is the true perfection of the Christian that takes place after death, when the positional and progressive truths of justification and sanctification are aligned, and the Christian is without sin entirely. Wesley tends to blur the distinctions of all three in his doctrine of Christian perfection, and this creates confusion with respect to the biblical portrait of sanctification.
In conclusion, the works of Wesley have had a profound impact on the Church and continue to have a voice today. The doctrine of Christian perfection arose in a specific historical context, and it is helpful to note that upon reading his work. However, for as much good Wesley has done in his writings and preaching, one must point out that his doctrine of Christian perfection was flawed at best, and has caused much confusion and calamity in the Church, at worst.
Great paper Peter, very clear and economical. I think some of your criticisms can be at least partially solved, and we can either discuss it together or I can try to respond online. I don’t want to right now though because I want to think about some of your conclusions for a little while.