My questions are related to how we understand these commandments. Are they universal rules that all of humanity ought to abide by, regardless of their Judeo-Christian heritage? Is humanity considered guilty for not adhering to these laws aside from their general condemnation for being children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3)? Could a person of a different faith read the Decalogue and believe that they are keeping the laws therein? And lastly, can we separate the first four commandments from the last six, deeming only the latter to be obligatory upon all of mankind, while all commandments have been revealed for the benefit of God’s elect?

When addressing commandments one through four, Calvin seems to have only the church in view, while in five through ten, they appear to be binding on all of mankind. Any thoughts?

By Peter Phillips

Objection 1: Mungo Man said, “Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.”

Peter Phillips’ reply: Most certainly, the God who is love willfully planned and sent His Son to die and suffer at the hands of sinners, according to his foreordained purposes to redeem a people unto Himself. Let me unpack this biblically:

Paul says, “31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Rom. 8:31-34)” 

Please note that Paul says God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all. If God graciously gave up his own Son, how much more will He not freely give us everything we need? The Christian’s freedom from sin and death came at a price—God had to send his Son to be a propitiation for our sins, so that we might enjoy relationship with Him through believing on the crucified Messiah.

In order to hold to your objection, you would have to deny the testimony of Luke’s account of God’s determined purpose in the crucifixion (Peter actually preached the sermon that contains this):

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:22-24).

Please note that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified, according to the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” But, this was not the end of the story; God raised Him from the dead, showing that he accepted Jesus sacrifice on behalf of sinners. The penal substitutionary atonement is a part of the willful plan of God to save sinners—that’s love, my friend. However, just in case we think that is a slip of the pen, we have many other texts that say the same kind of things.

When Peter and John were thrown into prison for preaching the gospel, they did not cease to trust in God’s plan. Notice how they pray upon their release. How do they view the events leading to the cross, and, of course, the crucifixion itself?

Acts 4:23-28 “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

It may come as a shock, but the ones who betrayed, handed over, and crucified Jesus, did “whatever God’s hand and plan had predestined to take place.”

Perhaps you might object that this is not fair to Jesus, but this objection would certainly ignore that He willfully went to the Cross in obedience to His Father’s desires (John 10:17-18). Jesus actually rebukes Peter for trying to correct him when he said he must suffer and die on the cross:

Mark 8:31-33 “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

In fact, according to the doctrine of penal substitution, Jesus died in this fashion to bring glory to himself (John 17:1; Phil. 2:8-9; Heb. 2:9) and to save his people (Rom. 5:8, 1 Pet. 3:18), as well as to glorify His Father. Jesus high priestly prayer, which takes place right before his crucifixion, conveys this sentiment well:

John 17:1-5 “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

This is a beautiful portrait of the Trinity at work in procuring the salvation of God’s people. The Father plans salvation in this way because it would satisfy his justice and demonstrate his love towards sinners. The Son joyfully and willfully accomplished the work of redemption with his perfect life, substitutionary death, and resurrection. The Son takes our sin upon Himself, dies in our place, and satisfies the demands of God’s just wrath against sinners. Lastly, the Holy Spirit applies the work of salvation to the believer by grace through faith in the Gospel. 

(This post was originally part of a debate that broke out over at Biblicalthought.com, regarding one of Danny’s posts on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which was part of a larger paper on the nature and extent of the atonement [which you can find here on our Blog]. I hope to represent the discussion for you in full. I will give you a bit of background to the sort of objection he presents: Mungo Man is presenting a less careful and diluted version of the 16th century arguments of Faustus Socinus. The Socinians were refuted decisively by none other than John Owen, who was henceforth referred to as the “Hammer of the Socinians.” But, just so we don’t think that Socinus’s thought is a theological aberration that appears only once in history, we’ve decided to post this little clip of Emerging Church leader Brian Mclaren, who essentially says the same thing as Socinus and Mungo Man). Have a listen: Interview

Mungo Man said:

Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.

If God is Love, why can’t he just forgive us of our sins without killing something. It’s pretty barbaric, don’t you think? God’s self-image was so damaged by Adam’s sin; his “righteous anger” (does God get red in the face?), so enraged that he had to kill his only Son.

Is Jesus is asking us to be more mature than His Father? Christ told us to love our enemies . . . but God can’t? He hates with “righteous anger”. I have to pray for those who curse me . . . but God get’s to punish them eternally? And you’re calling that divine justice?

So, Salvation is God working out his own personal issues? His inner conflict of trying to figure out how he can love me?

I’m not feelin’ the love.

Peter Phillips response:

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity and occasion to defend the glorious doctrine of penal substitution. Recently, I was discussing with Danny the importance of these issues, especially with respect to the Gospel. I hope to show you by the end of this post (or perhaps one more) that you really don’t have good news if Jesus did not die a substitutionary death for his people. Secondly, I want to address some of your objections to this biblical doctrine (I’ve decided to do this second, because it will make more sense after I give you the holistic biblical context).

Why should anyone believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ? The first and foremost reason is that it is thoroughly biblical. From the Old Testament sacrificial system (which looks forward to Christ’s atonement) to the New Testament teaching (Jesus as the Lamb of God) of Christ’s propitiation for our sins, it is clear that the bible makes the substitutionary atonement of Christ central to its message. When you consider the institution of Passover during the Exodus (see Exodus 12), you plainly see the idea of subsitutionary atonement in view. The peculiar thing about the last plague upon Egypt was—that it was not specific in application to Egypt alone. The 10 plagues were God’s judgment upon Egypt for their worship of false God’s and other abominable practices, and thus, clearly an instance of God’s wrath towards sin and rebellion. However, the last plague is not directed at Egypt alone, but all the firstborns, including the Israelites (because they were caught up in the worship of the false gods of their Egyptian masters—Ezekiel 20:4-10). The only way to avert the wrath of God was to (by faith in God’s promise) slaughter the spotless Passover Lamb and cover the doorposts with blood. Thus, the Passover lamb was propitiatory (it turned away wrath) in nature. God would spare all the people who atoned for their sin in this fashion, but everybody else had God’s judgment fall upon them (death of their firstborns). Thus, the Passover/Exodus account is telling the story of how God always deals with sin and rebellion. He mercifully spares his people from his wrath and judgment, and he delivers them from their oppressive enemies by means of Judgment. One scholar says, “First, by means of the judgment of God there is salvation from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Secondly, by means of the Passover sacrifice there is salvation from the judgment of God. “ Paul picks this theme up in the NT when he states “Christ is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).” Christ died as an atonement for our sins, and in his death he turned away God’s wrath or satisfied his just wrath of God upon sinners (which we rightly deserve). The book of Romans says that “the wages of sin is death” and we have all sinned, thus we all are under the wrath of God’s judgment apart from Christ (Rom. 1-3). If God let people get away with sin and never judged it, then he would cease to be just. A god who is not just is capricious and immoral, but this is not the nature of the God of Scripture. He is just. But, He also loves, and He is love, John says. Here is the love of God, says the Apostle Paul, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Why did Jesus have to die for us? because apart from Christ we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), namely, objects of divine wrath (as sinners who willfully rebel against their creator). In God’s love he sent his Son to be a subtitutionary sacrifice in our place, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

Eph. 2:1-10 says it nicely:

2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

May I submit to you the proposition, “that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner.” He is the ultimate example of suffering love as a willing, innocent substitute for sinful people who deserve justice, but get mercy and grace. That, my friend, is the love of God for His people.

Let me close with a few explicit texts on penal substitution in the NT:

1 John 2:2- “He [Jesus] is the propitiation [turn away wrath] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

This last text is quoting from Isaiah 53, which is all about the Messiah dying in our place as a suffering servant. Another OT idea that is about substitutionary atonement is the Day of the Atonement, which is about sacrifice and substitution to avert God’s wrath upon Israel for sin, and subsequently bring God’s forgiveness. (Lev. 16). The doctrine of Penal substitution is Biblical, and there is no getting around it!

by Danny Pelichowski

Introduction
I read Augustine’s treatise ‘On Nature and Grace’ for my final primary resource reading assignment for my church history class. It has been a breath of fresh air because I was able to read with excitement and agreement more than being critical and in constant disagreement as I was with my past readings. For example Justin Martyr’s ‘first apology’ was very helpful from a historical perspective however I could not help but constantly disagree with many statements that he made throughout his writings due to his blending of platonic thought with Christianity, confused soteriology (baptismal regeneration, works righteousness, libertarian free will), inclusivistic beliefs about the philosopher’s eternal destiny, and his denial of the exclusivity of Christ. Surprisingly, there was also much to be cautious about in my second reading: Athanasius’ ‘On the Incarnation of the Word.’ Athanasius taught that God had to redeem fallen humanity from their “non-existent” evil state (contrary to Augustine) and restore the lost image or nature of God to man. He even goes so far as stating that God would be unjust if He had not become incarnate and redeem fallen humanity. Athanasius writes, “Surely it would have been better never to have been created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself”. Athanasius was dead wrong in concluding that God must have redeemed people or else he would be morally in question because it is due to God’s unmerited grace alone that he chose to save anyone to begin with. My third reading report was Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Summa Theologica’ which was more Aristotelian than it was Christian and his natural reasoning for the existence of God was unbiblical and should be rejected. All this to say that Augustine was truly a breath of fresh air to read because although there were some things I disagreed with there is much more solid Biblical substance in Augustine than all of the first three authors combined.

Background
Augustine is writing against the monk Pelagius who taught that man’s nature was not distorted by sin. Pelagius believed that every baby born was in the same spot as Adam and Eve prior to the fall. He completely denied the necessity of the grace of God for a person to be saved and taught that everyone could by their own free will live perfect if they were willing. Pelagius taught that man by nature can be saved by living rightly. Augustine thought that Pelagius was wrong about the nature of man. He believed that man was dead in sins and trespasses and cannot be saved let alone do anything good apart from the grace of God. Augustine argued that if people are whole and unblemished by sin then there would be no need of a physician to heal them because they are not sick but righteous. This debate was at the heart of the Gospel and for that reason Augustine spoke very pointedly against Pelagius’ heretical teaching. Augustine wrote this about Pelagius; “I only wish that the ability he has displayed were sound and less like that which insane persons are accustomed to exhibit.”

What About the Heathen?
When dealing with the question about the fate of the heathen Augustine does not take the popular evangelical Arminian position. I was glad to see that he let Scripture determine his beliefs on this topic as opposed to his feelings and experience as many are in the habit of doing when discussing this issue. In light of a discussion of the possibility of a person being saved by doing good works and observing creation without God’s special revelation of the Bible Augustine reasons;

“Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my
part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: “Then
Christ died in vain.” [1136] For if he said this about the law, which
only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be
said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, “If
righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain.” If, however,
Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be
justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath–in a word, from
punishment–except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.”

After reading this quote I hope it is fairly obvious why I appreciated this reading so much more than any other reading assignment for this class. It is interesting that even though Augustine was writing so early (5th century) he was dealing with many of the same issues that are debated in our churches today. Praise God for Augustine’s example by standing up for the heart of the Gospel and proclaiming that the atonement would have been in vain if it were possible for people to be saved apart form divine revelation and faith in Christ. Augustine argued along with Paul that if man could be saved by works of the law then Christ died in vain. In the same way he argued that if man can be saved through nature apart from the Bible then Christ equally died in vain. It is an evangelical fairy tail that many pastors and theologians will tell that the heathen in unreached tribes are being saved through their observance of nature and conscience. This is simply unbiblical because only through faith in Christ can a man be saved and made right before God.

Concluding thoughts
There are many other aspects of Augustine’s thought that I would strongly agree with. He was particularly capable arguing his view and making known the foolishness of unbiblical beliefs on certain subjects. For example: many in the eastern tradition like Athanasius taught that man could be made divine (theosis). To this Augustine says that “all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this.” Augustine’s point is amusingly valid that anyone who claims that a person can have the same substance as God (or become God) should look into how they came up with their position. This seems to be a very obvious point but many Christians today should heed Augustine’s advice. We should be testing others teaching with the word of God and insofar as their teaching aligns with Scripture we should commend and encourage them, but insofar as their teachings (as illustrated above) are contrary to the Scriptures we should as Augustine be skeptical at least and outspoken at best against these teachings. Let us speak out against heresy and keep close attention to our lives and teaching so that we would save both ourselves and those who hear us (emphasis added, see. 1 Tim 4:16). Augustine’s anti Pelagian treatise On Nature and Grace is the first book I have ever read by him and I look forward to much more in the future. This was a great introductory work indeed. I am thankful for the primary source reading assignments this past semester because I have been able to observe current theological issues in light of the formulations and debates about them throughout the history of the church.

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.

by Peter Phillips

An Exposition of Christian Perfection

Wesley has several different formulations of his view of Christian perfection, but they all converge upon the idea that one can be “perfected” in love. For Wesley, Christian perfection is “being renewed into the image of Christ” by loving God with all one’s heart, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. There are several careful nuances that need to be clarified before one can fully apprehend its depth, and, of course, several questions do arise at the mere mention of the term. Therefore, it will be helpful to clarify a few things up front.

The first question that might arise when considering the idea of perfection, is, “Why must Wesley insist on using the term?” To this, Wesley would readily respond that the notion of “perfection” is biblical. He addressed this issue in a sermon entitled Perfection, in the following manner:

The word ‘perfect’ is what disturbs many people. The very sound is irritating. Whoever preaches perfection, by claiming that it is attainable in this life, runs the risk of being accounted as worse than a heathen or a publican. As a result, some have advised us to stop using these expressions. But are they not found in the Word of God? If so, by what authority can any servant of God lay them aside, even though all men might be offended? We have not learned such a practice from Jesus…. Jesus himself taught, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’

Wesley insisted that one must be true to the biblical text, and that is what he attempted to do, in practice and preaching. He would not allow for biblical words or concepts to lose there meaning, so as to become obsolete. Whether he rescues biblical language or gives it a whole new flavor of meaning is an important issue to bear in mind.

The next issue Wesley would address in clarifying perfection is what he did not mean when he preached the doctrine of Christian perfection. Wesley maintained that the Christian who had experienced perfection was not perfect in every way, but rather in a carefully nuanced sense. He explains what sense Christians are not perfect as follows:

In what sense are they not? They are not perfect in knowledge. They are not free from ignorance, no, nor from mistake. We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible, than to be omniscient. They are not free from infirmities, such as weakness or slowness of understanding, irregular quickness or heaviness of imagination…. From such infirmities as these none are freed till their spirits return to God; neither can we expect till then to be wholly freed from temptation; ‘for the servant is not above his master.’ But neither in this sense is there any absolute perfection on earth.

Therefore, for Wesley, there was no such thing as a static concept of absolute perfection this side of heaven, but rather one that allowed for mistakes and ill temperaments, which were a result of either imperfect knowledge or natural temperaments, both of which are effects of the fall. Furthermore, perfection as a Wesleyan concept does not make a man infallible or incapable of falling back into sin.

What exactly, then, did Wesley mean by Christian perfection—he maintained that it was a state of being perfected in the love of God, such that, one loves God with all one’s heart and thus is free from the power of sin, so as not to commit willful transgressions of God’s law. It is, simply stated, to love God and your neighbor, which implies deliverance from all sin. This deliverance extends to the thoughts, deeds and intentions of the heart. In 1764, Wesley reflected on the doctrine of perfection, and gave the simplest, most condense and comprehensive statement of perfection:

1.     There is such a thing as perfection, for it is again and again mentioned in Scripture.

2.     It is not so early as justification, for justified persons are to ‘go on to perfection.’ (Heb. 6:1)

3.     It is not so late as death; for Paul speaks of living men that were perfect. (Phil. 3:15)

4.     It is not absolute. Absolute perfection belongs not to man, nor to angels, but to God alone.

5.     It does not make a man infallible: None is infallible, while he remains in the body.

6.     Is it sinless? It is not worthwhile to contend for a term. It is ‘salvation from sin.’

7.     It is ‘perfect love.’ (1 John 4:18) This is the essence of it; its properties, or inseparable fruits, are, rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks. (1 Thes. 5:16)

8.     It is improvable. It is so far from lying in an indivisible point, from being incapable of increase, that one perfected in love may grow in grace far swifter than he did before.

9.     It is amissible, capable of being lost; of which we have numerous instances. But we were not thoroughly convinced of this, till five or six years ago.

Therefore, Christian perfection is usually something that happens later in one’s Christian life, but prior to death. It is not a static point that one reaches, but one can progress further into the throws of perfection—continuing to be perfected in the love of Christ. The essence of perfection is love—love of God and neighbor.

With respect to sinlessness, Wesley has some tricky nuances to lay hold of, because he wanted to show that Christians really could be free from the power of sin, in the sense that they could be without sin in a particular way. As Wesley himself said, “But if the love of God fill all the heart, there can be no sin therein.” But, one might ask, “How does Wesley define sin?” He defines “proper sin” as the willful transgression of a known law of God, and “improper sin” as the involuntary transgression of a known or unknown law of God. Wesley did not prefer to call “improper sin” sin, but instead referred to them as mistakes of ignorance or infirmities, which still required the atonement of Christ, but could coexist with pure love or perfection.

by Peter Phillips

The Historical Context

Like all theology, Wesleyan theology did not come into existence without a historical context, and therefore it cannot be understood apart from a proper discussion of the historical landscape of which Wesley was part. First, it is helpful to understand that in 17^th and 18^th century Europe, doctrine had become so refined “in certain” Lutheran and Reformed circles, that it had grown cold and stale, a pale comparison to the reformation of the 16^th century. Church historian Justo L. Gonzalez describes the situation this way:

Protestant orthodoxy did a great service to the development of Protestant theology, for it served to spell out some of the implications of the great insights of the sixteenth century. At first, it was deeply religious, for it was an attempt to set down with as much detail and clarity as possible what were matters of personal religious significance for those involved in the movement. However, as succeeding generations inherited the theological work of their ancestors, that work became increasingly stale and objectified, as if the significance of theology were to be found primarily in a series of truths that could be formally stated in propositions to be transmitted from one generation to another.

Although Gonzalez has somewhat overstated the pervasiveness of the problem with Protestant scholasticism, he serves to remind us of some of the dangers that can stem from scholasticism of any kind. In short, certain theologians of Wesley’s day had lost sight of the practical and experiential importance of Christian doctrine. Therefore, in response to this development springs the birth of Pietism, which sought to underscore the practical and experiential importance of doctrine and personal relationship with Christ. Spener, Wesley, the Moravians, the Methodists, and the Puritans were all apart of the Pietism movement, and each sought the revitalization of the Christian life and practice, but some were more faithful to the Reformation and Scripture than others. However, Wesley was a man of reform, in a day that needed reformation, and he gave a clarion call that the simplicity of the gospel must be preached.

The second issue that was a part of the historical landscape of Wesley’s day was antinomianism, which was the doctrine that the law was made void by faith. Wesley commented on the main tenets of antinomian thinking at the First Annual conference of Methodists, on June 26, 1744. He lists six pillars of their teaching:

1.     That Christ abolished the moral law:

2.     That Christians, therefore are not obliged to observe it;

3.     That one branch of Christian liberty is liberty from obeying the commandments of God;

4.     That it is bondage to do a thing because it is commanded or forbear it because it is forbidden;

5.     That a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God or to do good works;

6.     That a preacher ought not to exhort to good works—neither to unbelievers because it is hurtful, nor to believers because it is needless.

Wesley fought vigorously against antinomian doctrines because he believed they were heretical and detrimental to the living witness of the church. What is relevant for the purposes of this paper is that antinomian teachings undercut the reality that Christians ought to live like Christ and follow His teachings. Thus, Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification was reactionary in nature. He sought to give a clear account of what the Bible teaches on the subject, but sadly, he went to extremes most times due to his antinomian opponents. Antinomianism needed to be answered, and Wesley was there with a fresh take on sanctification and the Christian life. Although he would affirm that his view goes back to the Apostles, it was not until some time around the 4^th century that similar doctrines were even heard of.

by Peter Phillips

Introduction

In a time when the church had succumbed to formulaic and cold expressions of doctrine, and Christian practice had become diluted by antinomianism, John Wesley came onto the scene preaching salvation by faith alone and spoke of the profound freedom Christians have from the power of indwelling sin. Wesley had a significant impact on the Church in his day and several movements have since broken out in his theological wake. He wrote and preached extensively on the theology of justification and sanctification, in a time that desperately needed a fresh voice. For the purposes of this paper, I would like to focus on Wesley’s view of sanctification, known as Christian Perfection. I believe Wesley had some interesting things to say on the subject, but his formulation exceeds the boundaries Scripture delineates on the issue, and perhaps, to the degree that he redefines the nature of sin and convolutes the whole idea of sanctification. In the following paper, I would like to briefly sketch the theological impact of Wesley, set the discussion in its historical context, exposit his view of sanctification, and then critique its weaknesses.

The Impact of Wesley

Wesley was a man given over to the steadfast proclamation of the gospel at whatever the cost, and he defended the central doctrines of Protestantism when they were in danger of becoming stale and diluted. Church historian Mark Noll identies Wesley’s single greatest impact, “Most important, as heirs of the earlier Protestant movements, John and Charles Wesley vigorously reaffirmed the central message of Protestantism: sola gratia, sola fide, and sola Scriptura—salvation was by grace alone through faith alone as communicated with perfect authority in the Scriptures.”[1] What Luther began in Wittenberg and Calvin carried into Geneva, Wesley revitalized in Anglican spheres during the 18^th century. Wesley was the first to argue for justification by faith alone, but he did not stopped there; he saw the need for an completely renovated view of sanctification in the light of the current lapse in Christian witness among his people.

Another aspect of Wesleyan thought that bears some consideration is the impact of Wesley’s experience-based testing of the validity of doctrine. He emphatically maintained that Christians ought to be able to experience all the Bible teaches about any particular topic, especially knowing and experiencing a deep relationship with God through faith in Christ.  Wesleyan scholar Laurence W. Wood points out that this is a distinctive feature of Wesley’s theology: “a Wesleyan hermeneutic, though it gives priority to the Scriptures as the basis for all beliefs, assumes that all truth is existentially perceived and appropriated…. Hence the crucible of life is the laboratory for testing our interpretation of Scripture.”[2] Much of the Pietism movement, of which Wesley was a part, claimed that experience plays a considerable role in the Christian life.[3] Wesley left this legacy for his followers and evangelicalism as a whole.

One can hardly speak of Wesley’s impact without reference to Methodism, and particularly the small groups in which he carried out his vision for spiritual transformation within the church.[4] Although the beginning of small group ministry was not his own idea, Wesley popularized the thinking of Philipp Jakob Spener, who was considered the father of the Pietism movement, and he adapted his own model to be the foundation of Methodism.[5]  Small groups were designed to supplement church worship and deepen spiritual growth through corporate theological reflection, intense study, and intimate relational experience.[6] Wesley’s description of these groups is as follows: “Such a society is no other than a company of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other work out their salvation.”[7] This was the kind of devout Christian experience that made Methodism winsome and attractive to the masses, who had grown tired of the stale and formulaic protestant scholasticism, which neither had the spirit or passion of the great reformer. To be clear, not all of protestant scholasticism can be characterized in this light, and particularly the proponents of the Heildelberg confession, the Westminster divines, and all those who have followed suit.

Lastly, a distinct feature of Wesleyan thought that had a huge impact on successive generations was the necessity of holiness in the Christian life. It was quite early in Wesley’s spiritual journey that he became persuaded that holiness was an indispensable part of the Christian life. Professor of Wesleyan studies at Southern Methodist University, William J. Abraham, notes, “In the reading of theologians such as Jeremy Taylor and William Law, Wesley became convinced that holiness of heart and life is the heartbeat of Christianity. He was attracted by a vision of the gospel that put a premium on personal transformation.”[8] As Wesley’s views on this matured and crystallized, they eventually led to his doctrine of Christian perfection. Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection spawned a holiness movement that has impacted and given birth to several denominations that currently raise the Wesleyan banner of holiness.

by Peter Phillips

Already/Not Yet

The question regarding the timing of the Kingdom of God has been one of considerable debate throughout the centuries, and it will have a significant impact on whether one thinks Christ is reigning presently or not. However, to set the proper context for “the reign of Christ” discussion, it will be helpful to lay some theological groundwork. The problem of timing has everything to do with the seemingly contradictory body of textual support the Scriptures provide on this issue. Ladd introduces the threefold problem that scripture presents, as follows:

“Our problem, then, is found in this threefold fact: (1) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdom of God as God’s reign. (2) Some passages of Scripture refer to the Kingdom of God as the realm into which we may now enter to experience the blessings of His reign. (3) Still other passages refer to a future realm which will come only with the return of our Lord Jesus Christ into which we shall then enter and experience the fullness of His reign. Thus the Kingdom of God means different things in different verses.”

Therefore, the task of the theologian is to have a broad enough view that can account for all the biblical data, yet be true to the context of each relevant passage. For the purposes of this paper, and the personal convictions of the author, the inaugurated eschatological view seems to make the most sense of the biblical data.

The basic idea behind an inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom is the fact that there is a sense in which one clearly sees a present Kingdom in Scripture (primarily in the Gospels), and yet, one can readily see a body of evidence that the Kingdom is an event yet future. Thus, Jesus could say, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven [God] is at hand” (Mt. 4:17), and without batting an eye, he could pray, “Your Kingdom come, your will be done” (Mt. 6:10). Jesus declared that the Kingdom of God had burst onto the scene of this world in His own person and ministry. Hoekema explains, “We may say, therefore, that Jesus himself ushered in the Kingdom of God whose coming had been foretold by the Old Testament prophets. We must always see the Kingdom as indissolubly connected with the person of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, inaugurated eschatology sees the Kingdom as “inaugurated” or brought into this world in the person and work of Christ, and yet still awaiting a future consummation when the Messiah King rules over the new heavens and earth. The Kingdom of God is actually in an “already here,” but “not yet” fully consummated state.

One important highlight of the inaugural view of the Kingdom of God is that it emphatically demonstrates that God’s Kingdom is present in the world in some sense, and dynamically so. Ladd maintains:

“The Kingdom in this age is not merely an abstract concept of God’s universal rule to which men must submit; it is rather a dynamic power at work among men…. Before the apocalyptic coming of God’s Kingdom and the final manifestation of his rule to bring in the new age, God has manifested His rule, His Kingdom, to bring to men in advance of the eschatological era the blessings of His redemptive reign.”

Therefore, the “already” aspect of the inaugurated view is clearly showing that God is giving a foretaste of his not yet fully consummated Kingdom, in which the blessings of the age to come are spilling out into this age, and preeminently through the person and work of Christ. The reign of God, so to speak, has begun in Christ’s coming. In their book Kingdom Ethics, Gushee and Stassen attempt to show just how significant this foretaste of the Kingdom really is, “Our argument thus far has been that Jesus came announcing the reign of God; that the prophet Isaiah—to whom Jesus frequently referred—offers us a rich picture of the coming reign of God as a state of affairs characterized by God’s salvation and deliverance, God’s presence, justice and peace, and great joy.” Gushee and Stassen argue that God is reigning now through Jesus Christ, because His person and work have ushered in the salvation blessings of the Kingdom, though they are careful not to say that the Kingdom is fully consummated. Yet, if this is true, which the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies seems to suggest, then one can confidently conclude that God is reigning in some sense through Christ.