Is Christian Perfection Possible?

According to Article Ten of The Church of the Nazarene, “entire sanctification is that act (work) of God, subsequent to regeneration (justification), by which (regenerate) believers are made free from original (inbred) sin, or depravity, and brought into the state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.”[1] This sounds wonderful, but the obvious question would then be: is this the experience of the church? Are Christians capable of being made perfect in love and are they capable of experiencing freedom from original sin? As Nazarenes, we say we believe this to be the case, but does this concept actually ring true to our own experience? Do we find that we have been set free from original sin and that we have been made perfect in love?

Article Ten of The Church of the Nazarene states that the experience of entire sanctification is known by many other terms or names. At the 2009 General Conventions of the Church of the Nazarene a number of lines were added to Article Ten of our Articles of Faith. One of these added sentences states the following on entire sanctification: “This experience is also known by various terms representing its different phases, such as ‘Christian perfection,’ ‘perfect love,’ ‘heart purity,’ ‘the baptism with or infilling of the Holy Spirit,’ ‘the fullness of the blessing,’ and ‘Christian holiness.’”[2] These are all different names for the same experience, or at least different aspects of the same experience. Different groups of Christians have different names and different understandings of this idea of Christian Perfection and what it exactly looks like.

This understanding of a second work of grace is not limited to only our denomination. Other groups within the universal church have also preached this concept or a concept similar to the one that we claim for ourselves. Nazarenes claim the doctrine of entire sanctification, but so do other denominations, such as the Wesleyans, the Free Methodists, and the Salvation Army. Though they may differ slightly in the way they present this belief, the belief is relatively the same. Other denominations at least believe that God has called His people to holiness, believing the words of Scripture which say that without holiness no one will see the Lord. The Catholic Church especially seems to have placed a great emphasis upon the need for heart-holiness, though honestly it would seem that many parishioners have lost a proper understanding of what this actually means.

I believe that Christian Perfection is a possibility in the Christian life. I believe that God calls us to be holy, and that he expects that we will let Him work His holiness within us. I do not believe that we can become holy on our own strength. It is God’s work in us. The Apostle Paul writes, “for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”[3] I also believe that because of The Fall we are inclined to sin since birth. We are born into sin, which means that we cannot help but sin. The Psalmist writes, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”[4] It is a natural part of who we are. However, I also believe that God can rescue us from this bondage to sin and the sinful nature. I believe that He works His grace in us before we even know Him or respond to His promptings, and I believe that we have the choice of whether or not we will follow after Him with all of our hearts and with all of our minds. This is the choice that we have, but even if we choose to follow after Christ, we still struggle with sin because we cannot work out holiness inside of us. We must allow God to fill us with His Spirit. I believe that we receive the Holy Spirit when we choose to follow after Christ. When we come to Christ, I believe that we must surrender all over to Him and not hold anything back to the best of our knowledge. There may be areas in our lives that we do not necessarily give over to God at this point, but I believe that God will make known to us at the proper times whatever remains in us that we need to give over to Him. I believe that the believer is sanctified by the Spirit at the moment of salvation. However, I also believe that the moment of salvation may not necessarily be an obvious moment or a distinguishable time in the life of the believer. I think that some people sort of just find themselves as a part of the church. Some seem to somehow get incorporated into the church and find themselves as believers through community experience, and some people are simply born into the church and do not even remember a time when they were not Christians. However, I also think there comes a point in time even for these people who have believed in God all of their lives where they must make a conscious decision to continue to embrace this faith, aware that the choice is theirs. Also, if they have not been baptized in water, they should choose to do so at some point. All of this having been said, I think that the Holy Spirit lives in all believers regardless of their level of maturity. I think that we grow in Christ, and that over time we become more and more in tune with the Spirit of Christ. To be honest, I am unsure what to do with the idea of “instantaneous entire sanctification.” It seems like entire sanctification could be something that happens in an instant, but also something that happens overtime. I think I like the distinction made by H. Orton Wiley between the idea of purity and maturity. He said that purity is the instantaneous work of God in the heart of the believer, but that maturity is something that we grow into.[5] I think I like this idea because it kind of explains the problem we have run into when discussing when entire sanctification takes place in the life of the believer. Is it instantaneous or is it process? Wiley asserted that being made pure before God is instantaneous and I am inclined to agree with him on this. It would seem to me that there is no such thing as being partially pure, and that something or someone is either pure or they are not pure. I think it would make sense to have a pure heart, but still be growing in maturity.

I think that entire sanctification should not necessarily be something that occurs at a crisis moment. While I think that this is a valid scenario, it seems that entire sanctification is something that might not look a whole lot different in the life of the believer than the way their life looked the day before they became entirely sanctified. It seems to me that if they truly have surrendered their lives over to God that God would respond to this by giving them more and more grace. Honestly, the concept of entire sanctification confuses me, but maybe that is alright. Maybe this is because there will always be an element of mystery to the nature of God and the way that nature is imparted to us.

I know that when we are saved we must repent of our sins, and that this means that we must turn away from that which separates us from God. God’s Spirit living in us helps us to know what we should do and what we should not do, and that His Spirit does not act with some sort of rigid moralism. The Holy Spirit speaks to us in love for our own good, for the preservation of our soul. The Spirit checks us, and we feel guilt when we do something that goes against God’s best for us. I think that repentance is something that happens at the time of salvation, but I also believe that repentance is something that needs to continue on throughout our lives. It would seem that this might contradict what I said earlier about Christian Perfection being possible, but I do not believe this to be so. I believe that even those who have been perfected in love continue to repent. I think that this ongoing repentance is actually a sign of being perfected in love. This does not mean that the believer has let sin rule over or master them. It means that they are aware of their need of a Savior. They are aware that no matter how close they are to God, there is always the potential for sin in this life. Does this mean that the sinful nature is not truly eradicated within those who have been made perfect in love? No, I do not think so. I think that the potential for sin is always there, and that we act upon that in one way or another. We either allow God to have His way in us, or we choose to follow our own way in sin. John Wesley believed that the entirely sanctified believer did not truly sin, but that they carried infirmities in this life. He believed that these were not truly sins because they were not committed willingly against a known law of God, but he believed that we still needed to repent of these infirmities.[6] I would agree with this idea because I recognize that we do carry infirmities even after being entirely sanctified, and I believe that repentance is something that necessarily continues on throughout the believer’s life. However, I am unsure of Wesley’s idea of infirmities to a certain extent. He says that they are not true sins, so it would seem that the entirely sanctified believer is free from committing true sins, but this seems faulty to me. It seems as though those who have been entirely sanctified actually do commit “true sins,” meaning that even those who have been entirely sanctified have time where they willfully transgress a known law of God. If this is not the case, then I am not sure I have ever met anyone who has truly been entirely sanctified. However, I do believe that the Spirit works in the heart of the believer, convicting them of their sins and calling them to repentance. I also believe that those who have been entirely sanctified do not behave in the same way as those who do not have the Spirit behave, and even differently than believers who do have that Spirit but who simply may have not yet been entirely sanctified. But this is not simply an issue of behavior, it is an issue of the transformation of the heart. Paul writes, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”[7] The believer who has been entirely sanctified is a believer who not only has the Spirit of God living in them, but whose own spirit has been changed by the Holy Spirit. The love of God is overflowing from them because they have allowed God’s love to fill them completely. This is why I believe that Christian Perfection is possible. It is not something that we do ourselves. It is the entire transformation of our own personal spirit by the love of God in the Holy Spirit. God is love, and where God is there is love. So if God is within every aspect of a person, their heart, their soul, their mind, their strength, then the love of God will be present and evident in every aspect of that person. The love of God is perfect, and this is how Christians can be made perfect. It is not anything that they have done. It is all by the grace of God. It is the grace of God that called out to us before we knew Him, it is His grace that causes some to not even remember a time when they did not believe, and it is His grace that fills us with His Spirit and allows us to make room enough for His love, and for Him Himself.

Irenaeus believed that God’s goal in creation was that mankind would be united with Him, and that they would continue to grow in their relationship with Him. He believed that God created us in His image as well as His likeness and with the potential to be more than what we are, but that sin entered our world and we fell, thus interrupting this process. He believed that Christ would have come as a human, God made into flesh, regardless of whether or not there was a fall, because God’s goal has always been to be united with us. This does not mean that we will one day become God or gods, but it means that not only did the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ restore the likeness of God within us, but it also restored our potential to become more than what we are. We are able to be united with God in love through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the body of the Church.[8] This concept is known as recapitulation, and it bears resemblance to the regeneration at work in believers. In this view, the sinful nature truly is eradicated within the church, and this not just in a heavenly state, but on earth. In Christ, who showed us how mankind was created to be, we see the collision of heaven with earth. God will establish His kingdom on earth in fulfillment of Christ’s prayer and the prayer of the Church, who is the bride of Christ, “May it be on earth as it is in Heaven.” The kingdom of Christ is not only spiritual, but physical. The two cannot be separated. Christian Perfection is not just perfection in the spiritual sense, but in the physical sense as well. The likeness of God has been restored within us, and one day our physical infirmities and diseases will be removed as well. God dwells in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and we are united with Him through Christ. God is with us now, and He will continue to be with us. This is in agreement with the last recorded words of John Wesley upon his deathbed, which were, “Best of all, God is with us.”[9]



____________________________________________________


[1] (eds.) Dean G. Blevins, Charles D. Crow, David E. Downs, Paul W. Thornhill and David P. Wilson. Manual/2009-2013 Church of the Nazarene. Kansas City, MO: Nazarene Publishing House, 2009, 33.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Phil. 2:13
[4] Ps. 51:5
[5] Mark R. Quanstrom. A Century of Holiness Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2004, 86.
[6] John Wesley. On Sin in Believers, Sermon 13, 1763.
[7] 2 Cor. 5:17
[8] Irenaeus. Against Heresies.
[9] (ed.) Anonymous. How to Pray: The Best of John Wesley on Prayer. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Pub., 2007, 96.

Comparison of Collins and Maddox on their Interpretation of the Theology of John Wesley

In his book Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology Randy Maddox presents his views on the theology of John Wesley. One idea that he presents throughout his book is the idea that the theology of John Wesley changed over time. Throughout his life his theology was developing, so at one point in his life Wesley may have believed a certain way about one thing only to change his mind at a later point in time. This is an important concept to keep in mind as one reads through Maddox’s book. Another important thing to keep in mind while reading Maddox’s view of Wesley’s theology is that his take on what Wesley has to say is shaped by his own personal theology. The theology of Maddox is one that places important emphasis upon something that he refers to as “responsible grace,” from which the title of his book receives its name. The phrase “responsible grace” is a play on the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spoke of the Church issuing out what he called “cheap grace.” Bonhoeffer’s issue with the church was that it had become lax when it came to sin. Believers could claim the grace of God and yet feel free to indulge in whatever sin they chose to so long as they came back to the church for forgiveness. “Responsible grace” is the opposite of this. It shows that while it is true that the grace of God is a free gift, it is not something to be abused or misused. It is God’s work, but we have work to do as well. The idea that we play a part in our own salvation is one of the key ideas that Maddox presents in his interpretation of Wesley’s theology.

Maddox’s book must be compared to another book on the theology of John Wesley. This second book is written by Kenneth Collins is titled The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Like Maddox, Collins is influenced by his own theology as he attempts to present the theology of Wesley. Collins does not focus on the issue of “responsible grace” as Maddox does. Rather than placing much emphasis upon the part that we play in our own salvation, Collins focuses more on the idea that grace is a gift of God, something that we receive because of the unconditional love of God. He does not say that we are not responsible for anything, but he does emphasize that we cannot do anything on our own without the grace of God working in us. Collins and Maddox both offer differing views on the theology of John Wesley.

Chapter one of Maddox’s book is on human knowledge of God and discusses the revelation of God to the world as an act of grace. Maddox presents what he believes to be Wesley’s views on both the universal revelation of God and the Christian revelation. Maddox writes that “Wesley was convinced that no one had access to God apart from the gracious restoration of Divine self-revelation” (29). He believed that by grace God has revealed himself to us, and that even by natural revelation of God, we are still subject to the grace of God because it is only by the grace of God that we naturally able to conceive of God. Maddox goes on to say that Wesley “also believed that this restoration took place in a continuum of progressively more definitive expressions, beginning with a basic knowledge that was universally available and reaching definitive expression in Christ” (29). This means that while by the grace of God we may receive a general knowledge of God through natural revelation, this natural revelation should only be viewed as the beginning of a process leading to Christian revelation which would then require a response from the individual on whether or not to embrace this Christian revelation. This leads to question of what the fate of those who have not received the Christian revelation would be. Maddox says that Wesley rejected any idea of another chance for people after death. Wesley believed both in the justice of God and in the universal love of God. Wesley said that this was all up to the “mercy of God, who is the God of heathens as well as of Christians” (33). He believed that it was not for us to say that those who had not been given a chance in this life would be excluded from heaven. Wesley recognized the dilemma of what God’s response would be to those who had not received the revelation of Christ. He saw the problem of a God who condemns those who had not been given a chance and a God who receives all who have not received Christ. Maddox says that later in life Wesley believed that God would judge all people by the amount of light they had received and how they had responded to it.

Collins also affirms Wesley’s belief in natural revelation, saying that Wesley believed that salvation began with prevenient grace, and that mankind devoid of the grace of God at work would be unable to even conceive of God. All natural revelation is a result of God’s grace. Collins quotes Wesley, saying, “It is undeniable, that he has fixed in man, in every man, his umpire, conscience; an inward judge, which passes sentence both on his passions and actions, either approving them or condemning them” (77-8).

Maddox also refers to the “Wesleyan quadrilateral,” saying that Wesley used scripture, reason, tradition, and experience to determine that which was theologically sound doctrine. Maddox also says that Wesley tended to favor a combination of scripture and reason. He used these two elements of the quadrilateral most often. Collins did not seem to be interested in discussing the Wesleyan quadrilateral in his book.

Maddox and Collins both speak of Wesley’s views on the attributes of God. Collins lists the essential attributes of God as being love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. He believes that the most important of these to Wesley however was the attribute of love. Collins agrees with Mildred Bangs Wynkoop that in order to truly be Wesleyan “the love of God must be at the heart of this enterprise” (20). Collins seeks to prove this by quoting Wesley from the later years of his life, saying, “But, blessed be God…we know there is nothing deeper, there is nothing better in heaven or earth, than love! There cannot be, unless there were something higher than the God of love!” (20). Collins also writes that Wesley seems to have perceived the holiness of God and the love of God to be at tension with each other at times.

Maddox says that Wesley describes both the natural attributes of God as well as the moral attributes of God. He says, “By ‘natural attributes,’ Wesley meant those characteristics that are definitive of the Divine nature; without these characteristics, God would not be God” (51). Maddox says that Wesley believed that God was “spirit” and but this did not mean that God did not have affections, as some claimed. Wesley did not believe that God’s sovereignty was jeopardized by His ability to love and perhaps be changed in one way or another by this love. According to Maddox, Wesley also believed that God is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. As far as God’s moral attributes are concerned, Maddox claims that Wesley believed “that God’s moral attributes converge in two central virtues: justice and goodness (or love)” (53).

Collins and Maddox both discuss Wesley’s view on predestination. Collins writes, “One of the more important corollaries of the biblical truth that the foreknowledge of God is not determinative is the grace-infused freedom of humanity” (29). Wesley was very much against the Calvinist ideas of election, believing that while God had fore-knowledge He did choose before the creation of the world a select few to be saved and everyone else to be damned. Wesley believed that the Calvinist interpretations of the Scripture on these points put “the integrity of the gospel” at stake. Collins quotes Wesley, saying, “Wesley believed that the doctrine of predestination, as held by some of his contemporaries, ‘directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God.’” (31).

Maddox also discusses Wesley’s views on predestination. According to Maddox, the main issue that Calvinists have with Wesleyanism is that they believe Wesleyanism to have too high of a level of optimism at what mankind has the potential to become in this life. Calvinists believe that everyone sins in thought, word, and deed every day of their lives, regardless of whether or not they have the Spirit of God within them. Calvinists saw Wesley’s view of holiness as being too optimistic. Yes, those who had been saved would eventually become completely holy, but this would only be after death. Wesley believed that holiness was a possibility in this life, and only after one died and went to heaven. The issue that Wesley had with the Calvinists was a different one. Maddox presents before us the idea that “the fundamental difference between Wesley and his Calvinist opponents really lies more in their respective understanding of the nature of God than in their evaluation of the human situation” (56). Wesley believed that the Calvinists believed in an inappropriate understanding of the nature of God. He saw their view of predestination to be in conflict with the most important attribute of God, His love. Wesley simply could not believe in a loving and just God who would send his own creation to hell for no apparent reason other than that he could. He believed that God’s love extended to all, and not just a few. Wesley believed that the election of God was something that was dependent upon salvation. Election followed salvation.

Maddox also talks about Wesley’s belief in Original Sin. In this section of his book he presents two different Wesleyan beliefs on the nature of sin, the first being that of original sin, and the second being the idea of “inbeing sin.” Original sin is inherited from our first parents who sinned. With this idea is the belief that because of this original sin all of mankind is subject sin or born in sin so that they cannot help but turn away from God. Inbeing sin is the idea that sin is an individual choice that we all make. This does not necessarily mean that original sin does not exist, but it does mean that we are responsible for the sins that we choose to commit. Maddox again, as he does throughout his book, makes a point that the theology of John Wesley gradually changed over time. Maddox says that over time Wesley became more and more uncomfortable with the idea of original sin, but that he never stopped believing in the truth of this doctrine. Maddox says that the reason Wesley became uncomfortable overtime with the idea of original sin was not because he did not believe in it, but because he struggled with the idea of a person being judged for a sin they did not commit. Maddox writes, “Wesley’s growing uncomfortableness with the notion of inherited guilt was not due to any doubt about universal human sinfulness, but rather was an expression of his life-long conviction that God deals responsibly with each individual” (75).

Collins also discusses Wesley’s views on Original Sin. Collins claims that Wesley believes God created all of the creation good, but humanity sinned and caused all of creation to fall into disrepair. Because humanity sinned then, it has been stuck in sin ever since. Wesley believed that the primary sin of humanity was not pride, pride was the sin of the devil, but in having a distorted relationship with God. The emphasis of this is again on the love of God. Sin is the absence of the reception of God’s love. Collins shows how Wesley was always a firm believer in the doctrine of Original Sin and in Total Depravity. Collins writes, “Wesley declared that all who deny this vital doctrine, for whatever reason and with whatever justifications, ‘are but heathens still.’” (65). While Maddox attempts to show that Wesley had a least a few similar beliefs as the Eastern Church, Collins shows just how different Wesley’s theology was from that of the Eastern Church, particularly when it came to idea of Original Sin. However, Collins points out that Wesley also differed from the Western Church in his understanding of grace.

Both Collins and Maddox bring up the concept of prevenient grace in their books. Collins writes that there are two aspects of prevenient grace for Wesley. The first is that prevenient grace comes before both justifying and sanctifying grace. The second is in Wesley’s belief that all grace is prevenient grace because all grace is initiated by God. In speaking of Wesley’s understanding of grace, Collins shows how Wesley believed in co-operant grace, meaning that we ourselves have some responsibility when it comes to our own salvation. We work with God. However, Collins is also quick to point out that Wesley also believed in free grace, meaning that even what would be referred to as co-operant grace was a result of the free grace of God.

In Maddox’s discussion on prevenient grace he says that Wesley believed that prevenient grace was only the first step in the process of restoring grace. Prevenient always has the larger picture in mind. As far as the idea of co-operant grace is concerned, Maddox says he prefers to call this “responsible grace.” He also writes, “In short, Wesley did indeed affirm a role for meaningful human participation in salvation. However, he always maintained that this role was grounded in God’s gracious empowering, not our inherent abilities” (92).

A discussion of Wesley’s theology would not be complete without bringing up the doctrine of entire sanctification. Amazingly enough, Maddox seems to a certain extent avoid talking about entire sanctification, while Collins speaks quite a bit about this. This again is due to their own theologies influencing them as they write about John Wesley’s theology. Maddox seems to be more prone to the idea of salvation and sanctification as a process in the life of the believer. However, Maddox does discuss the ideas of “final justification” and “sanctification proper” in relation to “first justification” and “the New Birth.” Maddox admits that Wesley believed that Holy Spirit empowered the believer prior to salvation to fulfill the tasks required of the holy life of the believer. However, Maddox still emphasizes his idea of “responsible grace,” saying, “[Wesley] was simply insisting that God’s gracious empowering acceptance enhances rather than replaces our responsive and responsible growth in holiness” (171-2).

Collins says that Wesley saw holiness as the end of religion. He does not hesitate to say that Wesley believed in the idea of Christian perfection. However, he also point out how Wesley believed that there was a sanctification process that led up to Christian perfection. Collins also says that Wesley believed that humans were incapable of being absolutely perfect. As long as they were alive, believers would live with infirmities. He writes, “Those who are perfected in love are still subject to ignorance and mistakes, a condition that is inseparable from their finiteness” (299). Wesley also believed that there was no state of grace from which a believer could not fall. Wesley believed that those who had been made perfect in love had not lost their ability to sin, but had lost their desire to sin. Collins shows how Wesley believed that those who had been made perfect in love received the power from the Holy Spirit to longer be subject to willful sins. In this sense, then, one who no longer sinned willfully because their desire to sin had been removed truly had by God’s grace been made perfect.



_____________________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology. (Nashville:
Kingwood Books, 1994).

Collins, Kenneth J. The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace.
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007).