Why John Wesley’s View of Christian Perfection Was Not Considered Serious Heresy

John Wesley, co-founder of Methodism in the eighteenth century, believed in what he termed “Christian Perfection” or “Entire Sanctification”. He believed that a believer could reach a certain state of spiritual maturity in which he/she was governed solely by pure love for God and others.

But by “Christian Perfection” Wesley did not mean complete sinless perfection in this life. He called certain “small” sins “mistakes”, “ignorance”, or “infirmities”, while at the same time acknowledging those “infractions” as transgressions of God’s perfect Law(confusing if you ask me). And I believe that is why he got away from being considered as a total heretic by many in that area of his beliefs and teachings.

He did not advocate the serious heresy which some advocate today, namely complete sinless perfection in this life. But he did espouse and teach a dangerous view of sanctification in my opinion, by calling certain sins something other than sin. So that you can see I am not misinterpreting Wesley’s beliefs and teachings, the following is from his writing titled “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection”(Chapter 19):

"QUESTION. What is Christian perfection?

"ANSWER. The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies, that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed by pure love.

"Q. Do you affirm, that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake?

"A. I continually affirm quite the contrary, and always have done so.

"Q. But how can every thought, word, and work, be governed by pure love, and the man be subject at the same time to ignorance and mistake?

"A. I see no contradiction here: 'A man may be filled with pure love, and still be liable to mistake.' Indeed I do not expect to be freed from actual mistakes, till this mortal puts on immortality. I believe this to be a natural consequence of the soul's dwelling in flesh and blood. For we cannot now think at all, but by the mediation of those bodily organs which have suffered equally with the rest of our frame. And hence we cannot avoid sometimes thinking wrong, till this corruptible shall have put on incorruption.

"But we may carry this thought farther yet. A mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a mistake in practice. For instance: Mr. De Renty's mistake touching the nature of mortification, arising from prejudice of education, occasioned that practical mistake, his wearing an iron girdle. And a thousand such instances there may be, even in those who are in the highest state of grace. Yet, Where every word and action springs from love, such a mistake is not properly a sin. However, it cannot bear the rigour of God's justice, but needs the atoning blood.

"Q. What was the judgment of all our brethren who met at Bristol in August, 1758, on this head?

"A. It was expressed in these words: (1.) Every one may mistake as long as he lives. (2.) A mistake in opinion may occasion a mistake in practice. (3.) Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect law. Therefore, (4.) Every such mistake, were it not for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal damnation. (5.) It follows, that the most perfect have continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as well as for their brethren, 'Forgive us our trespasses.'

"This easily accounts for what might otherwise seem to be utterly unaccountable; namely, that those who are not offended when We speak of the highest degree of love, yet will not hear of living without sin. The reason is, they know all men are liable to mistake, and that in practice as well as in judgment. But they do not know, or do not observe, that this is not sin, if love is the sole principle of action.

As you can see, regarding so-called “mistakes” Wesley writes, “Where every word and action springs from love, such a mistake is not properly a sin.”

Then right afterward he writes, “However, it cannot bear the rigour of God's justice, but needs the atoning blood”, and then “Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect law. Therefore, (4.) Every such mistake, were it not for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal damnation. (5.) It follows, that the most perfect have continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as well as for their brethren, 'Forgive us our trespasses.'”

A huge concern I have regarding this teaching is that sin is minimized or trivialized, when God’s Word never, ever minimizes or trivializes any sin, whether “big” or “small”.

I cannot over-emphasize how serious a deception this can be in the life of true believers as well as false converts.

Thank you for posting that Oracio.

Areadymind, you're welcome brother.

brother Greg, I appreciated reading your thoughts on this topic. You wrote:

I suppose he wrote these things to encourage the brethren that were seeking intensely after God because we will always have such sinful faults, we will never be perfect in action and thought. Even this post I am writing is mingled with small doses of pride, self-sufficiency, lack of love and all other types of imperfection. We simply have to realize we are not God and always fall short of that standard.

I am all for encouraging and exhorting others and myself to strive for holiness in the fear of God, with a serious hatred of sin.

When I am on the streets witnessing or discipling someone I try to explain clearly that a true believer will show such marks of mortifying the flesh in their life. I try to make sure not to lower God's standard of holiness which He calls all of us to walk in. But I also try to make sure I don't give the impression that I mean sinless perfection in this life.

I used to be involved with a small Spirt-filled group based in Riverside CA within which the doctrine of sinless perfection caused much harm, and eventually the group was completely destroyed by that doctrine. Brother Greg, you know of this group which I am referring to.

amen and amen

there greg is showing the spirt of whitfied ,and weasly

he is such a strong believer holiness but sees his weakness thats humily

i think the main problem is god didnt make us clones

we are differnt ,and he define our experance through our own personl shaded glasses ,,and smome call a spade an spade and thores cl it soming else

form reading wesly sermen at whitfield funarel ,,you could see the love and agreement with weasly concering his brothers

i think whitfield ,as my self ,,define sin as anthing thought deed or word ,that doesnt give god the glory HE DESERVES ,,weasly may have seen scertaint things as faults and faling short ,,but not as sin in this respect

it s just down to inteprataion of our life and the word of god ,and we are fallable ,so we will never infalable be able to understand and explain our walk with god perfectly

if was sin for whitfield ,and falts for weasly ,,so be it pick wich suits you ,,but lets fellowshipp in the bond of peach ,always agknowlaging as greg just did in similar word ,we are falable creatours with falts ,or sins ,
but lest seek perfection ,as we are called to be perfect ,as perfct as a creatour of god be in a body ,and love ne another ,,,for we are gods propertys ,and unique

love and blessings ,from a brother who deserves nothing i have not even breath

It is sad that many who know Christ powerfully and attempt to write and understand their experience is twisted and maligned by the next generation into a heretical system or belief that would have grieved the founder or the original believer who had the ideas.

This is very sad indeed, we can codify (i.e: methods) and then use the form as a blueprint for the next generation, but without the heart and presence of the Spirit all we end up with is ink soaked pages that are meaningless.

Great point brother.

What Wesley called mistakes were errors of judgement and not infringements of the holy law.

Wesley did not like to use the term sinless perfection due to the disputes. He did teach and led many people who believed that man can be without sin, as in keeping the law perfectly.(krautfrau)

Again, I will quote Wesley: “Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect law. Therefore, (4.) Every such mistake, were it not for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal damnation. (5.) It follows, that the most perfect have continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as well as for their brethren, 'Forgive us our trespasses.'”

Wesley is clearly calling such mistakes "transgressions"(sins), though not willfull sins. To him they were sins of ignorance or infirmity but still sins, therefore still needing the atonement of Christ.

It is indeed sad to see some twist Wesley's views to promote the heresy of sinless perfectionism.

I am glad we can agree on these things dear brother. But I hope this does not turn anyone off from John Wesley, he has so much to offer modern evangelicals.(sermonindex)

You are right brother. After prayerfully considering my opening post I think I may have been a little to hard on Wesley regarding this topic and I regret it.

I have been tremendously blessed in the past by reading Wesley's biography and sermons. And I definitely do not want to give anyone the impression that I am against Wesleys writings in general. I agree that he has left us with much we can all benefit from spiritually.