Sinless Perfection

Recently I received a letter part of which as follows:

Recently in our church, we had a "lively" discussion during sunday school hour. Seems this one couple in our class,who used to worship elsewhere, believes a christian no longer sins, and if they do, then they wern't a christian to begin with. They seem to think that they no longer sin. But, they say, if one does sin, they must "go back" and do the first works all over again ( baptism,etc.).

"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. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:9,10

Charles Finney differs slightly on this issue in that he doesn't excuse sins of ignorance. And he furthermore has taken the stand that one loses their salvation every time they sin. Thus under Finney's theology one not only cannot claim to have achieved sinless perfection, for how would they know they've overcome the sins they are ignorant of, but also no one could ever claim that they are even saved, since how would they know whether they hadn't lost their salvation through a sin of ignorance? But I have show elsewhere that Finney has not been consistent in his theology and most Holiness types defer to Wesley. So I'll deal with Wesley.

Thus he believes that a "truly converted person" cannot lose their salvation, since it is inevitable that they will persevere (which is the same idea as the Perseverance of the Saints under Calvinism); and yet he believes that those born of God can lose their salvation. Thus he must not believe that everyone born of God is necessarily "truly converted".

Such theologies as can be found in the Wesleyan and Charismatic communites have no Biblical justification for making such divisions among those born of God. As 1John 3:9,10 above affirm that no one born of God will continue to sin. It does not say that some do and some don't. So also 1John 5:4 "everyone born of God overcomes the world." It again does not say that some born of God do and some don't.

Thus Wesley is mistaken to make such distinction among those born of God. Rather the Bible, such as in the letter of 1st John, makes a distinction between those claiming to be born of God and those who are actually born of God. Or in Wesley's terminology the Bible affirms that everyone born of God is among the "truly converted" and thus will persevere till the end as 1John 2:19 also affirms.

Wesley also proposes that a perfectly sanctified Christian can nonetheless lose their salvation. "By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God and our neighbour, ruling our tempers, words, and actions. I do not include an impossibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole." But here again Wesley, being purely dogmatic, has failed to think this through. For if a person loses salvation by sinning, one who has achieved a state of sinless perfection cannot lose their salvation, since they can no longer sin. And again we have Wesley's statement above that the "truly converted" never fall away.

Thus we find in Wesleyan theology not only contradictions to the Bible, but also logical inconsistencies.

The Church of the Nazarene is an example of a denomination which pledges allegiance to such Weslyan theology, as do also Methodist churches and the like.

While those of a Wesleyan theology, such as Nazarene types, speak of Christian perfection, they believe that such a person does continue to commit acts of what they refer to as "faults, shortcomings, mistakes, deviations from a standard of perfect conduct." They refer to them as being "involuntary and innocent." But if they are not sin then why mention them at all?  While they have been careful to avoid the term "ignorance" in this list, Wesley does incorporate in his. Yet with respect to attitude they propose that such a person will never have any attitude or response contrary to the spirit of Christ? Such a person never consciously sins in act, word or thought. "Consciously" is of course the loophole for Holiness types.

Or to quote Wesley himself from http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/plain_account/

"Perhaps the general prejudice against Christian perfection may chiefly arise from a misapprehension of the nature of it. We willingly allow, and continually declare, there is no such perfection in this life, as implies either a dispensation from doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God, or a freedom from ignorance, mistake, temptation, and a thousand infirmities necessarily connected with flesh and blood."

"We Secondly believe, that there is no such perfection in this life, as implies an entire deliverance, either from ignorance, or mistake, in things not essential to salvation, or from manifold temptations, or from numberless infirmities, wherewith the corruptible body more or less presses down the soul. We cannot find any ground in Scripture to suppose, that any inhabitant of a house of clay is wholly exempt either from bodily infirmities, or from ignorance of many things; or to imagine any is incapable of mistake, or falling into divers temptations."

Seems the more ignorant a person is to his own sin, the more he can nonetheless be reckoned to have attained to a state of sinless perfection.

It seems to me this elitist attitude among these holiness types is not unlike that of the religious elite of Jesus' day. If they want to boast about how sinlessly perfect they are, then let them demonstrate it by their behavior. I have yet to personally meet anyone who lives up to their own standards, let alone God's standards. Jesus dealt with such people by simply pointing out their sin. He said concerning the adulterous woman, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7 Not even Jesus's enemies, the religious elite of his day, were so ignorant of their own sinfulness as to willing to claim sinless perfection publically. For a person to claim that they have achieved sinless perfection is a very very serious thing and must be scrutinized, even in Jesus' case. For Jesus himself encouraged people to scrutinize his own behavior saying, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" John 8:46 If they are "ignorant" of their own sinfulness, then it seems out of love Christian brethren must make them aware of their sinfulness. Notice for example how Jesus dealt with such a person in Matthew 19. A rich man came to his casually using the term "good", just as holiness types casually claim themselves to be sinlessly perfect. Jesus immediately picked up on this and knew that this man didn't have the conviction of sin necessary to come to faith. He first tried to convict him of sin by pointing out the law. But apparently the man thought himself sinlessly perfect claiming to have keep all the law. But he was thinking in a limited sense in terms of the letter rather than the spirit of the law. So Jesus got to the heart of it and gave him a command which pointed out his greed. That's part of Christian ministry - to humiliate those who reckon themselves "good" people.

For example in the case of the Church of the Nazarene site I noted above, along with their claims of sinless perfection I can easily point out a sinful practice they advocate on that very web site. Namely as they put it, "The Nazarene Church does allow and ordain WOMEN PREACHERS.  In fact, the first women preachers in America began in the Holiness Movement of the later 1800's." But Paul  says in 1Timothy 2:11-14, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." Notice that the basis for this command was not cultural, rather it was based upon the very nature of the role relationships of men and women which God established in Genesis. And let me be so bold as to say that feminism is one of the things which has driven the Charismatic movement with its effeminate charcteristics.

A women wrote me to clarify this section as to what is characteristic of her gender, saying that women "emote" more than men. I had to look "emote" up in the dictionary and this is what it said, with an example:

The American Heritage Dictionary
EMOTE
To express emotion, especially in an excessive or theatrical manner: “The more she emotes, the less he listens, and the less he listens, the more strident and emotive she becomes”

As for a non-Wesleyan view of verses like 1John 3:9,10 you can view the associated study guides at http://www.bcbsr.com/books/sgbs.html

Sincerely,

Steve Amato