People disagree, but I think Wesley (probably) didn’t believe in sinless perfection.
“Lawlessness” was Wesley’s functional definition of sin. I think his concern was when a Christian is tempted and chooses to give God the finger (what some theologians call ‘sin with a high hand’) and deliberately disobey. Perfect love would enable us not to do that.
As an Anglican priest he prayed the Lord’s Prayer, and so prayed “forgive us our debts/trespasses.” As I read it I John never totally excludes the possibility of sin (I write so you won’t, but if you do) but does clearly say that being born again is antithetical to sinning. Being born from above now makes it possible not to sin but never makes sinning impossible. “There is a sin that leads to death and a sin that does not lead to death.” Psalm 19, “Who can discern his errors? Cleanse my hidden faults. Keep me also from willful sins, may they not rule over me. Then I will be blameless, innocent of great transgression.” Again, willful sin is the issue.
Holiness is about passion more than performance. James wrote that we all ‘stumble in many ways.’ Today most people never consider any theology that goes beyond what they think Paul teaches. Books like I John or James are ignored. We read the Bible through a Reformational lens.
We would agree that sin is not to be our default setting. Every time another celebrity preacher is caught out having sex outside of marriage, we assume he could have avoided it. Had he loved his wife, it wouldn’t have happened. Can I love my wife enough to be faithful to her? Can I love Jesus enough to be faithful to him? Anyone would have to at least believe it is possible by the grace of God.
I think that Our Father leaves things unclear sometimes so that we must lean into Him for our assurance, comfort, and security . . . because He knows too well that we run off from Him like the idiot sheep that we are every damned time that we think we know it all.
EXCELLENT! I LOVE THIS! It makes so much sense to me now!! All my life I’ve tried to understand this!
People disagree, but I think Wesley (probably) didn’t believe in sinless perfection.
“Lawlessness” was Wesley’s functional definition of sin. I think his concern was when a Christian is tempted and chooses to give God the finger (what some theologians call ‘sin with a high hand’) and deliberately disobey. Perfect love would enable us not to do that.
As an Anglican priest he prayed the Lord’s Prayer, and so prayed “forgive us our debts/trespasses.” As I read it I John never totally excludes the possibility of sin (I write so you won’t, but if you do) but does clearly say that being born again is antithetical to sinning. Being born from above now makes it possible not to sin but never makes sinning impossible. “There is a sin that leads to death and a sin that does not lead to death.” Psalm 19, “Who can discern his errors? Cleanse my hidden faults. Keep me also from willful sins, may they not rule over me. Then I will be blameless, innocent of great transgression.” Again, willful sin is the issue.
Holiness is about passion more than performance. James wrote that we all ‘stumble in many ways.’ Today most people never consider any theology that goes beyond what they think Paul teaches. Books like I John or James are ignored. We read the Bible through a Reformational lens.
We would agree that sin is not to be our default setting. Every time another celebrity preacher is caught out having sex outside of marriage, we assume he could have avoided it. Had he loved his wife, it wouldn’t have happened. Can I love my wife enough to be faithful to her? Can I love Jesus enough to be faithful to him? Anyone would have to at least believe it is possible by the grace of God.
Good post . . . about as good as it gets.
I think that Our Father leaves things unclear sometimes so that we must lean into Him for our assurance, comfort, and security . . . because He knows too well that we run off from Him like the idiot sheep that we are every damned time that we think we know it all.