WPCZ  
      2 <      B    A   R   :     Z     #| c         TimesNewRomanPS M Engravers Old English TimesNewRomanPS (Italic)  "    ^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jyooyf]yy8Ayfyy]yo]fyyyyf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSySSJP!PZY *   88      C D8   8 S  yJyJyJyJyJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.ySySySySySySySySySySyJ  ySySySyS]S    8      8NM    LS8J  SS S.4}}S2 S}2                                                2HP DeskJet 500 Scalable              HPDE50SC.WRS Xu \	    P ; XX,,HhXP 2   
   n     x   :     Z        #| c          "    ^2CQdd$CCdq2C27dddddddddd77qqqYzoCNzoozzC7C^dCYdYdYCdd77d7ddddCN7ddddY`(`lY 2   !CC      P RC   C d  YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC7C7C7C7ddddddddddY  ddddod    C      CN\    [dCY  dd d7>d< d<                                                <HP DeskJet 500 Scalable              HPDE50SC.WRS Xu \	    P ; XX,,HhXP 2    
   N  (   X  R    :       TimesNewRomanPS M Engravers Old English "  ^  }   y    y y y            y y  p,   (  M	   I  p  p   y      u   l d  l       s         Y   y       C                                  , , , , ,             p  p  p  p 	               ,                                    N            }          u }  p   00p                           d                                                                      p  "    ^PKbIPPzIIIPzqszvv}qxzIIbݴȟƞCPCqxI_qRrZFnnA<kAnqvqZiEqkjncs~sY I   (PP      P bP   x s  _____RZZZZCCCCnqqqqqqqqn_  qqnqv    x      xNn    mxKb   xFKZC C                                                C 2 ^  R  >  :  
  :    :  $  "  ^ d ^ z   / [ d d   [ [ [ d           [ [    z                           T d T   [ w  g  q X   Q K  Q      q  V      |     Y   [       2 d d             d   { d                w  w  w  w  w (  g  q  q  q  q  T  T  T  T                      w                                      N            ^ z          X ^   q T       T               ,                                        ,                                          T  "    ^NI_GNNwGGGNwnpwrrynuwGG_ׯANAnuG]nPoXDkk?:h?knrnXfCnhgk`p{pY G   'NN      N `N   u p  ]]]]]|PXXXXAAAAknnnnnnnnk]  nnknr    u      uNk    juI_   uDIXA A                                                A "    ^2CTdd+CCd2C27ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN7NUdCddYdY7dd77Y7ddddNN7dYYYNP7PlY 2   !CC      P RC   C d  zdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC7C7C7C7dddddddddoYzd  ddoYdzd    C      CN\    idNd  dd d7>d< d<                                                <!  < x N N ,  Knx a3L    P U Pd+ y . S 8 * ,   S \	    P oU PdW ! < (  ,   bh< \	    P oU hP "    ^(1<<d]((<D(!<<<<<<<<<<!!DDD5nWPPWICWW(/WIkWWCWPCIWWqWWI(!(8<(5<5<5(<<!!<!]<<<<(/!<<W<<5::AY    ((      0 1(   ( <  W5W5W5W5W5kPP5I5I5I5I5(!(!(!(!W<W<W<W<W<W<W<W<W<W<W5  W<W<W<W<C<    (      (N7    6<(5  << <!%ZZ<$ [[<Z$       x      k              x                     $ 2 &  :     \             
   "    ^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006Y    !!      ( )!   ! 2  H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,  H2H2H2H282    !      !N.    -2!,  22 2KK2 LL2K       d      Y              d                     d  7 c C 2 ,   "Xc \	    P oU XP )g    ,   a3L    P U P > { P P ,  {u{ a3L    P U P   M  d d ,  U a3L    P U P!  < x N N ,  Knx a3L    P U Pd+ y . S 8 * ,   S \	    P oU Pd, W ! < (  ,   bh< \	    P oU hPd- I  2 !  ,   r,2 \	    P oU ,P 5 c C 2 , ( 6Xc *f9  x mU XX     Eras-Medium                                                              2         X                                  0John Wesley's

 Christian Perfection

xand Its Consequences





2Roger Bolger

0March 9, 1992
 "          0*0*0*
   "  
   
 #  Xc \	    P oU  "XP#     
    
   = x One of the doctrines of John Wesley, founder of Methodism, is that known as the
doctrine of Christian perfection.  In the sermon of the same name, Wesley asserts that
Christians are perfect in the sense that they simply do not commit sin.  He backs up this
claim with reason and a great deal of citations from the Old and New Testaments, and refutes
all denials or modulations of his teaching in a similar fashion.  Many have found it difficult to
accept this statement, especially from the experiential view that is necessary to understand the
doctrine.
x The concept of perfection was derived from the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, via
"Macarius the Egyptian," who was actually a fifth century Syrian monk and indirect student
of Gregory.  Wesley studied ancient Christian literature to try to discover the true and original
pattern of Christian life, to be emulated in the "Holy Club".  He was particularly interested in
the works of Macarius and Ephraem Syrus because they described perfection as a process. 
Thus Wesley was drawing upon the Byzantine concepts of spirituality at their source, with
devotion as the way to perfection, which is the goal of every Christian's life.  The "Christian
Gnostic" of Clement of Alexandria became his ideal Christian as he combined the Eastern
  
 X N -  disciplined love with the Anglican aspiring love, and formulated his most distinctive doctrine.     N       
 X  -  ԍAlbert C. Outler, introduction, John Wesley, ed. Albert C. Outler (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1964) 910.  
x First, Wesley makes it clear exactly what he means by perfection.  No human has
perfect knowledge, since no one can wholly understand the nature of God, the time of God's
kingdom on earth, or even the workings of the visible universe.  Second, by reason of  this
ignorance, Christians are bound to err, though not necessarily in matters essential to salvation. 
Imperfection also exists in the bodies and minds, in that one can fall ill, or have difficulties "  h$ b =  0*0*0*   "  with faulty memory or confusion.  Lastly, freedom from temptation cannot be had in this
world, since even Christ suffered from it up until the time of his death, and the servant should
  
 X  -  not put himself before his Master.          u  
 X  -  ԍJohn Wesley, "Christian Perfection," FortyFour Sermons (London: The Epworth Press,
1964) 458461.    These points are easily accepted.
x The definition of perfection is further shaped by allowing that it may be possessed in
degrees.  St. John wrote in his First Epistle to those he called "little children", those who had
heard Christ's word and had their sins forgiven; to "young men" who had overcome
  
 X 
 -  temptation and carry the word of God, and to "fathers" who knew God in their souls. 7     
b   u  
 X  -  ԍ1 John 2:1214.7    This
expresses the path of the Christian life as progressing spiritually in the same way the body
matures.  Even the "babes" have attained this perfection, since, as stated by St. John in the
  
 X b -  same letter, "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (italics mine), 3     b   u  
 X & -  ԍ1 John 3:9.3   though only the
  
 X 8 -  "fathers" are perfect Christians, and they enjoy freedom from sin to the greatest degree. B     8   u  
 X  -  ԍWesley, Sermons 462.B   
Though not everyone shares Wesley's thoughts on degrees of faith, such agreement is not
necessary to the doctrine, since to have Christ in any degree is to share in Christian
perfection.
x The easiest way to summarize the concept is that all Christians, by loving God with
the whole heart may, for a time, be free from sin because there is no ill will and all thoughts
and actions are governed by love.  Though such an individual may be led astray by frailties of
the mortal body, including limited knowledge, intellectual capacity, and simple mistakes, these "   u    0*((aa\  "  would not be sins as such, but they would be forgiven through the atonement of Christ's blood
  
 X  -  and prevent damnation. n          u  
 X K -  ԍWesley, "Thoughts on Christian Perfection," John Wesley 284285.n    Wesley's evidence for excluding involuntary transgressions against
God from sin comes from Romans 13:8 and 10; "For he that loveth...hath fulfilled the
law...therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."  Since these defects are due to the imperfect
state of the body on earth, they are cast off along with the body at death, and do not affect
the soul at all, as opposed to those sins such as anger, pride, or lust, that originate in the
  
 X 
 -  soul. T    
y   u  
 X D
 -  ԍWesley, "Perfection," John Wesley 289.T  
x Just as the proof of salvation in Pietist traditions such as Methodism is a subjective
and emotional experience, divine in nature, the attainment of perfection is evidenced by a
similar experience.  The feeling of renewal in the love of God is reexperienced, except
greatly magnified as compared to how it was felt at justification, and it is now accompanied
  
 X  -  by the sense that sin has been destroyed from the soul. V     X   u  
 X  -  ԍWesley, "Thoughts," John Wesley 293294.V    This experience is so overwhelming
it is unmistakable to those fortunate enough to receive it.  In the state of sanctification, sin is
impossible because, unless one falls back into sin, all actions and thoughts are done out of 
love.  This is the meaning of the Christian "father".  Even the "babes" who have attained
justification through Christ share in perfection when they are motivated by love for God and
others, for mistakes that occur thusly are not true sin, but are forgiven them by virtue of their
justification.  They may sin in the future if not guided by love, but while they are so guided,
they are perfectly safe.  Even those who wrongly believe and proclaim themselves sanctified "    	    0*((aa  "    
 X    -  do not sin if they do so out of the zeal of their love for God. R  	          u  
 X y -  ԍWesley, "Thoughts," John Wesley 297.R  
x The doctrine of Christian perfection caused Wesley problems with other schools of
thought from its very conception.  His early contacts with the Moravians did much to shape
his faith and beliefs, especially by giving him a system of worship against which he could
impartially set his own thoughts and feelings.  These differences were expressed in Wesley's
letter to the Moravians on August 8, 1741, and came to a head a month later when Count
Zinzendorf confronted him.  Portions of Zinzendorf's words, as recorded in Wesley's journal,
follows:
 `	`	 "I know of no such thing as inherent perfection in this life.  This
is the error of errors.  I pursue it everywhere with fire and
sword!  I stamp it under foot!  I give it over to destruction!" 
"All Christian perfection is simply faith in Christ's blood... We
are perfect in Christ, never perfect in ourselves."  "A babeinChrist is as pure in heart as any fatherinChrist.  There is no
  
 X | -  difference."   
    |y   jG  
 X  -  ԍWesley, "The Rift with the Moravians," John Wesley, trans. from Latin by Albert C.
Outler 367372.  
 `	`	 Wesley could not agree to the teachings that Zinzendorf insisted upon, and broke off relations
with the Moravians soon after.
x Though he always considered himself true to the Anglican Church, church officials
could not agree with his teachings.  In Bristol, where the Methodist movement really came
into its own, Wesley clashed with the bishop, Joseph Butler, who claimed Wesley's preaching "  " A 
   0*((aah  "  was disturbing the parish.  Since Wesley had always taken care to avoid preaching at the
same time as church services were taking place, and indeed encouraged his followers to take
communion in the church with his preaching as only a preparation, this seemed ludicrous. 
Butler also censured him on his differences with the Anglican teachings regarding faith and
justification.  Butler said, "you have no business here; you are not commissioned to preach in
this diocese.  Therefore I advise you to go hence."  Wesley reminded the bishop that as a
Fellow of a College he had "an indeterminant commission to preach the word of God in any
part of the Church of England."  Though Wesley continued to preach in the Bristol diocese
and elsewhere, his sentiment, expressed in a letter he wrote earlier that year as "I look upon
  
 X b -  the world as my parish," was to become the motto of the Methodists.     b     u  
 X  -  ԍRadoslav A. Tsanoff, Autobiographies of Ten Religious Leaders: Alternatives in
  
 X  -  Christian Experience (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1968) 128129.  
x Various pamphlets and tracts of unknown origin and inaccurate content began to make
the rounds, claiming that Wesley and his brother Charles were expelled from Oxford, Jesuits
and Papists, hypocritical charlatans, and other lies.  These, along with warnings from the
pulpits against the Methodists, led to repeated mob violence that often escalated into riots. 
The object of some of the rioters was to do away with the Methodist preacher.  Wesley's
journal tells of one instance when he was dragged to the town, attempted to go into a house
but was dragged back by his hair, and carried through the town down the main street.  The
whole time people called out, "knock his brains out; down with him; kill him at once."  Often
Wesley would be saved from the mobs only by the sympathies of  those who dared rescue "    b    0*((aa  "    
 X    -  and hide him.  Over sixty descriptions of such assaults are found in Wesley's journals. 4            u  
 X y -  ԍTsanoff 129.4  
x The tensions with the Church of England and the rumors that circulated prompted
  
 X  -  Wesley to write an apologetic treatise of his doctrines in 1743 entitled An Earnest Appeal to
  
 X v -  Men of Reason and Religion, followed the same year by A Farther Appeal, parts I, II, and III. 
As an evangelical order within the Anglican church, Wesley sought to reverse the trends of
apathy, rationalism, and unbelief that grew in England in the eighteenth century, and felt that
his mission had been slandered so much that his work was hindered by misconception.  By no
means did he propose with these works to set the Methodists apart from the Church, but to
  
 X  -  reconcile them to it, while appealing to devout Anglicans to see the worth of the movement.   
  y   u  
 X  -  ԍOutler, introduction, "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion", by John
  
 X  -  Wesley, John Wesley 384.  
  
 X b -  x He begins in the Appeal by outlining the doctrines in terms of love for one's
neighbors, faith as the gift of God to see God's glory and hear the voice of Jesus Christ, and
that faith saves us from sin.  He then tells those that persecute his followers that they must
allow each person the right to private judgement according to his own conscience, and if the
critics truly follow the Scripture, they will see that there is no difference between them and
the Methodists.  The only problem is that the critics of Methodism misunderstand those who
claim Christian perfection to be selfrighteous fools, when in fact, says Wesley, they are only
saying that God's love operates through them at times, so that though they may err, they do
not sin by virtue of the love that motivates.  Even if guilty, Wesley says, they are better than
those who call themselves Christians who conduct themselves in a contrary manner.  "     
   0*((aa  "  Capitulating to the empiricists and allaying charges of mysticism, he defends reason as the
highest faculty with which to serve God, and denies the existence of Platonian innate ideas. 
Instead, faith opens our "spiritual senses" to discern good from evil, and allows us to reason
over spiritual things.  He then puts down those who participate only the outward form of
religion, and believe it to be adequate, as participating in a "solemn mockery of God," since
they lack the faith and love inside them.  The Methodists preach the inward salvation by faith,
and those who have not had their converting experience are called to search their hearts and
follow the will of  God until the day His gift comes to them as well.  Then they can join in
the "crimes" of studying and doing good works beyond what is "necessary" for salvation.  He
ends by addressing and dispelling charges against the Methodists, including Papism, working
for the destruction or disobeying the laws of the Church of England, seeking monetary gain,
  
 X  -  and most outrageously to Wesley, leaving the Church. }          u  
 X  -  ԍWesley, "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion", John Wesley 384424.}  
  
 X  -  x Again, in the Appeal, the doctrine of Christian perfection is defended in terms of its
Scriptural authority.  Added to this is Wesley's interpretation of saving faith as also including
  
 X | -  trust in God's promises to perfect the saved, so that "the wicked one toucheth him not". 4     |y   u  
 X  -  ԍ1 John 5:18.4    He
then points out that to deny this is to agree with the decrees of the Council of Trent, which
  
 X   -  said, "If any man hold  fiduciam to be essential to faith, let him be accursed," which identifies
retractors with the "Romists".  Going further, he claims the Council of Trent's statements were
directed specifically at the Church of England, and points out that these and papal decrees in
  
 X " -  the same vein should not move members of the Anglican Church, if they are indeed members.  "  " *    0*((aah  "  If not, says Wesley, at least heed the Scripture, which gives witness to perfection in faith in
so many passages, and failing that, listen to the voice of your own heart, being one who loves
God, and see if He is not a pardoning God.  To the charge levelled by the detractors that they
have never witnessed individuals who follow God so closely,  Wesley invites them to come
and see at least one before denouncing such people.  Overall, he asks that those who truly
wish to follow God try to do so by following Scripture, God's will, and the conscience, rather
  
 X 
 -  than persecuting good folk who are preaching Christ and converting sinners. Y     
     u  
 X e
 -  ԍWesley, "Appeal", John Wesley 402410, 424.Y  
x Wesley's teachings also drew fire from the Calvinists.  They attacked his denial of
predestination as Arminianism.  Though Arminius had never been one of Wesley's direct
  
 X b -  sources, he turned the charges into a positive label by publishing The Arminian Magazine,
  
 X 4 -  just as he appropriated the name of Methodists from an epithet. S     4y   u  
 X ^ -  ԍOutler, introduction, John Wesley 23.S    Even so, in 1773 he wrote
  
 X  -  Predestination Calmly Considered to support his position, being that the denial of human merit
and agency in the matter of salvation removes the imperative from the gospel and renders it a
caricature.  Chiefly because he denied that God can rightfully damn humanity and chooses to
save some only because of His mercy, Wesley did not understand that the doctrine of
predestination is meant only for the believer as a source of strength, rather than as a decree of
hopelessness for the sinner.  The doctrine of Christian perfection can comfort in the same
way, by affirming to the believer that with love of God, he or she can avoid spiritual errors
and have forgiveness for the human errors.  Wesley firmly believed that it was God's wish
that all people be saved from sin, and to deny this was to defame God's character, being good "  "	 *    0*((aah  "  and just by definition.  Therefore, the disagreements between the two groups are mainly over
  
 X  -  what the other denies, rather than affirms. |          u  
 X K -  ԍOutler, introduction, "Predestination Calmly Considered", John Wesley 425426.|  
x In refuting the arguments for predestination, Wesley again clarifies the meaning of
Christian perfection.  He says variously, with scriptural quotations in each instance, that one
who is righteous in the judgement of God; one who has the faith which produces a good
conscience; those who are grafted into the spiritual, invisible Church; true believers who are
branches of the true vine; those who have escaped the pollutions of the world; those who see
the light of God, the face of Christ, and partake of the Holy Ghost; those who live by faith;
and finally those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant may all fall and perish
everlastingly.  He then adds seventeen more scriptural citations that state similar points. 
While affirming that humans have the capacity to work with God toward their own salvation,
he makes it clear that he is not saying that salvation is conditional.  To do so would be to
contradict the Bible, and it is for that precise reason that he must affirm perfection, and
  
 X  -  cannot hold to the concept of predestination as stated by the Calvinists. \     y   u  
 X  -  ԍWesley, "Predestination", John Wesley 459468.\  
x Wesley's greatest objection to predestination was that its teaching is "a dangerous
mistake which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience." 
That is, to those who have just come to seek God, the doctrine of predestination seems to
exclude them from Him, and prevents the disappointed seekers from the conversion
(Christian) experience, and therefore from perfection.  He outlined this in a letter to John
Newton on May 14, 1765.  Newton, however, had been converted, so his belief in "  "
 *    0*((aah  "  predestination was merely an "opinion, compatible with a love of Christ and a genuine work
of grace."  Newton's rejection of perfection was "astonishing" in that he was disgusted by
Wesley's expectation that God would, as He promised, free him from sin, and even more
astonishing was that Newton, having been justified by God's grace, should not want the same
  
 X H -  thing. a    H     u  
 X  -  ԍWesley, "Letter to John Newton," John Wesley 7780.a  
x Christian perfection had its critics within Methodism as well as outside it.  Even more
dangerous to Wesley were those Methodists who took the perfection concept to its opposite
pole; not denying it but overaffirming perfection in their own lives.  By doing so they
seemed to prove exactly what critics had warned: that pride would result from the
promulgation of such a doctrine.  In 1762 this matter came to its climax when George Bell
and Thomas Maxfield of London led a revolt into schism over Wesley's "legalism" and
dilution of the perfection doctrine.  Wesley addressed this problem in 1762 in a tract entitled
  
 X  -  Cautions and Directions.  This, he hoped, would prevent others from falling into the same evil
trap as Maxfield's followers, and possibly bring those in error to recant and be restored to
  
 X | -  righteousness.       |    u  
 X  -  ԍOutler, introduction, "Causes and Directions Given to the Greatest Professors in the
  
 X  -  Methodist Societies", John Wesley 208209.  
x Wesley lists some of the false beliefs held in the wrong interpretation of perfection. 
Some people felt that they could not make any kind of mistake, were impervious to sin, or
would not die.  There were claims of the ability to discern spirits; that is, to see and
communicate with members of the invisible world, including demons as well as angels, and
perhaps ghosts.  There were those who would try to persuade people into believing they were
perfect without the experience of conversion from God.  Most dangerously, there were those "  h$ o    0*((aa!  "  who would claim that preachers who cannot or do not do the things listed above are "in the
  
 X  -  dark" and not true leaders of the people to the gospel. a          u  
 X K -  ԍWesley, "Cautions and Directions", John Wesley 305.a    These practices not only confounded
the correct teaching of doctrine, but gave an erroneous and ridiculous appearance of
Methodism to those outside it.
x As a first solution, Wesley cautions against pride, which cannot be escaped by simply
ascribing all to God.  By example, he names one Mr. Law who gives credit for the light he
possesses to God, but errs in believing that he has more light than others.  "Enthusiasm" is the
second danger, which means to expect gifts of God without working for them, such as
knowledge without study or strength without prayer.  This in turn can bring about
"antinomianism", the notion that one has attained a degree of holiness to warrant a bending or
breaking of God's law.  Moravian "stillness" is his example, a practice whereby no acts are
done in order to avoid sinfulness, including, at times, not attending to worship services. 
Another example is bigotry, having love only for one's own group, especially one's religious
group.  The fourth warning is over sins of omission, or failing to help another when the
opportunity arises.  A fifth danger is allowing one's desire to stray from God alone.  Next he
warns of schism, which can result from the preceding dangers and harm the performance of
God's work.  One must avoid judging those with whom one does not agree, to expect
suffering and opposition, and know that such difficulty is necessary for the soul's salvation
and the glory of God.  When His gifts do come, they should be spoken of, but in the least
offensive way, avoiding words such as "sanctification" or "having attained."  Finally, Wesley
asks that if one should fall into sin, it must not be hidden or disguised but should be taken "  h$ y    0*((aa   "    
 X    -  immediately to one's leader so that he may help restore spiritual health. e            u  
 X y -  ԍWesley, "Cautions and Directions", John Wesley 299304.e  
x It is not surprising that so many have misunderstood the concept of Christian
perfection.  Though the idea came from an early Christian writer, Wesley only claims the
Scripture as its source of authority, and does not rely upon a special theological construct to
explain it.  Instead, subjective experience of becoming filled with love for God are the only
requirements to walk this path.  Though other traditions have disagreed with perfection on the
nature of a "sinless" state, it is certain that this condition is an excellent model for each
Christian to strive towards, and with God's grace, attain.

 P 
  "  
 y     0*((aa>
  "  33 P
   #  x a3L    P U KnP# 3 Bibliography



  
 X H -  3 P   #  Xc \	    P oU  "XP# 3 Outler, Albert C., ed.  John Wesley.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.


  
 X  -  Tsanoff, Radoslav A.  Autobiographies of Ten Religious Leaders: Alternatives in Christian

  
 X b -  x Experience.  San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1968.


  
 X  -  Wesley, John.  FortyFour Sermons.  London: The Epworth Press, 1964.
