Wesleyan or reformed view of holiness?

[Jon 316]

Hi,

I am currently reading a book written by someone from the church of the nazerine (weslyan holiness). And I was just wondering, why are reformed people so against the holiness movement's view of sanctification?

My understanding is as follows...

Reformed, emphasise total depravity and the lifetime struggle against sin.

Weslyian view says the believer can be free from sin.

Reformed view says sin will always have the upper hand at times.

As far as I can see, the N,T seems to favour the Weslian view?

 

[MrMerlin777]

The problem is that the Wesleyan view tends towards perfectionism. The idea that one can be completely sinless this side of glory. The New Testament is pretty clear (as is the rest of Holy Writ) that we still have sin and we still struggle against it. "If we say we are without sin we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1John 1:8

Also see Romans 7:15-25

 

[Jon 316]

The problem is that the Wesleyan view tends towards perfectionism. The idea that one can be completely sinless this side of glory. The New Testament is pretty clear (as is the rest of Holy Writ) that we still have sin and we still struggle against it. "If we say we are without sin we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1John 1:8

I wonder if the 'term' perfection is a red herring and an unhelpful one to a point. It seems, going by this book, its about a heart purity which comes from God by faith as a gift of grace. The heart purity is maintained trhough constant abiding in Christ. There is always the potential to sin and fall. But the believer need not. As the other text from the book John says 'I write these things that you do not sin'.

 

[Whitefield]

It has been my experience that the fundamental difference between Reformed and Wesleyan on the matters of perfection/holiness boils down to this: who is the actor and who is the respondent. In Reformed theology God is the actor and man is the respondent. In Wesleyan theology man is the actor and God is the respondent.

 

[MrMerlin777]

It has been my experience that the fundamental difference between Reformed and Wesleyan on the matters of perfection/holiness boils down to this: who is the actor and who is the respondent. In Reformed theology God is the actor and man is the respondent. In Wesleyan theology man is the actor and God is the respondent.

Thanks you put that much better than I could have.

 

[CharlieJ]

John, the big difference is whether you view sanctification as an on/off switch or a process. The Wesleyan/Keswick view of sanctification posits two natures in the saved person. At any moment in time, the person "is" one or the other. Also, in this view, only intentional violations of the law of love can be called sin. So, a person may hold wrong views about God or worship wrongly, but that wouldn't be "sin", because the person is acting or thinking in concert with their love toward God. Also, there is no real progressive internal transformation going on in Wesleyan/Keswick theology. Every day, it is the same choice between the two opposed natures.

On the other hand, Reformed theology emphasizes regeneration, union with Christ, and the means of grace as avenues for internal transformation, allowing the saved person to increasingly love and serve God. Even at best, however, none of our works are "perfect", but they are accepted by God based on the mediation of his Son.

 

[Pilgrim]

Here is an interesting journal article that may be of interest on Second Blessing (Keswick or Wesleyan, basically) views of holiness and early Dallas Seminary Dispensationalism. I found it useful in tracing how the two teachings became intertwined.

The author comes to the conclusion that there is no necessary connection between one and the other, but that the combination of the two in the teaching during the early years at Dallas Theological Seminary was incidental to the time (late 19th/early 20th Century) in which both views were becoming popular.

 

[Whitefield]

John, the big difference is whether you view sanctification as an on/off switch or a process. The Wesleyan/Keswick view of sanctification posits two natures in the saved person. At any moment in time, the person "is" one or the other. Also, in this view, only intentional violations of the law of love can be called sin. So, a person may hold wrong views about God or worship wrongly, but that wouldn't be "sin", because the person is acting or thinking in concert with their love toward God. Also, there is no real progressive internal transformation going on in Wesleyan/Keswick theology. Every day, it is the same choice between the two opposed natures.

On the other hand, Reformed theology emphasizes regeneration, union with Christ, and the means of grace as avenues for internal transformation, allowing the saved person to increasingly love and serve God. Even at best, however, none of our works are "perfect", but they are accepted by God based on the mediation of his Son.

I'm not so sure the Wesleyan stance can be simply viewed as binary. Wesley himself spoke of "going on to perfection", however, he did expect that any Christian endeavoring toward perfection would experience this side of the grave. Sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition is progressive and I think the more fundamental distinction comes at the level of self-achievement (progress).

 

[tdowns]

My understanding.

Is it fails to recognize the depravity of man, even in regeneration.

My understanding, is that on our holiest day, our righteousness is filthy rags, so we continue to rest in the work of Christ, both for our Justification and Sanctification...while the Wesleyan will trust in his own merit (infused with grace), and when it fails, will create elaborate veils of betrayal to self and world to maintain their guise of "holiness".

On my best day, I cling to the Life and Death of Christ.

 

[Pilgrim]

John, the big difference is whether you view sanctification as an on/off switch or a process. The Wesleyan/Keswick view of sanctification posits two natures in the saved person. At any moment in time, the person "is" one or the other. Also, in this view, only intentional violations of the law of love can be called sin. So, a person may hold wrong views about God or worship wrongly, but that wouldn't be "sin", because the person is acting or thinking in concert with their love toward God. Also, there is no real progressive internal transformation going on in Wesleyan/Keswick theology. Every day, it is the same choice between the two opposed natures.

On the other hand, Reformed theology emphasizes regeneration, union with Christ, and the means of grace as avenues for internal transformation, allowing the saved person to increasingly love and serve God. Even at best, however, none of our works are "perfect", but they are accepted by God based on the mediation of his Son.

I'm not so sure the Wesleyan stance can be simply viewed as binary. Wesley himself spoke of "going on to perfection", however, he did expect that any Christian endeavoring toward perfection would experience this side of the grave. Sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition is progressive and I think the more fundamental distinction comes at the level of self-achievement (progress).

From what I recall from my previous membership in the Wesleyan church, that church teaches that there are three aspects of sanctification: initial, progressive and entire. (The pastor said in the membership class that he did not believe in entire sanctification and from what I recall basically skipped over it.)

My understanding is that some of the development of the idea of entire sanctification (or "perfection") came after Wesley's death and was an emphasis of the 19th century Holiness movement in the USA. The Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan churches are "Holiness" churches in that regard. My understanding is that is one reason they (or their precursors as both churches as constituted today are the products of various mergers) never reunited with the main Methodist church after 1865 was because they thought the Methodists did not place the proper emphasis on that teaching, along with maybe a few others.

 

[Hamalas]

As far as the practical outworking of this theology, I can give some testimony with relatives of mine. I have several (extended) family members who hold to the Wesleyan view. Many of them believe that they have permanently "conquered" certain sins. I even have one uncle who tells people that he hasn't sinned since 1977. I find that hard to believe. At least one danger of Wesleyan holiness theology can be a tendency to underestimate sin and justify spiritual blindness.

 

[Hippo]

I would really reccomend the short book "Holiness, The False and the True" by H A Ironside.

Ironside labored for years in the Salvation Arrmy under the yoke of the holiness movement and in my view his analysis is both moving and devestating.

Ironside is not even a Calvinist but he saw the bankruptcy at the heart of seeking holiness in man rather than God.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Ellen White and the slew of other charlatans that came out of the so-called "Second Great Awakening" held to Weslyan perfectionism, and its a lie from the pit of Hell.

It is a cornerstone to the lie that is Seventh Day Adventism.

Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.

 

[CharlieJ]

I'm not so sure the Wesleyan stance can be simply viewed as binary. Wesley himself spoke of "going on to perfection", however, he did expect that any Christian endeavoring toward perfection would experience this side of the grave. Sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition is progressive and I think the more fundamental distinction comes at the level of self-achievement (progress).

I'm not sure about the actual John Wesley Wesleyan theology. I was speaking more about the developed Keswick theology that is common throughout the US. I think that they would pay lip-service to progressive sanctification, but a key problem is their emphasis on "abiding". In Keswick theology, the "abiding" life is a zone, if you will, that we get into through surrender, a state of passivity. While we are there, we are fully under the control of the Spirit and do not sin. While we are not there, we are fleshly and do lots of bad things. So, the practice of Keswick theology is binary.

 

[Pilgrim]

I would really reccomend the short book "Holiness, The False and the True" by H A Ironside.

Ironside labored for years in the Salvation Arrmy under the yoke of the holiness movement and in my view his analysis is both moving and devestating.

Ironside is not even a Calvinist but he saw the bankruptcy at the heart of seeking holiness in man rather than God.

I haven't read Ironside's book but would expect it to be helpful.

J.C. Ryle's Holiness may still be the best single book which sets forth the Reformed view on the subject.

 

[JBaldwin]

Is it fails to recognize the depravity of man, even in regeneration.

My understanding, is that on our holiest day, our righteousness is filthy rags, so we continue to rest in the work of Christ, both for our Justification and Sanctification...while the Wesleyan will trust in his own merit (infused with grace), and when it fails, will create elaborate veils of betrayal to self and world to maintain their guise of "holiness".

On my best day, I cling to the Life and Death of Christ.

This puts it very well. I have been away from the Keswick (holiness) movement for over 20 years, and I'm still recovering. I was in it for 5 years after being in fundamentalism from childhood until my early 20s. It was happy day when I finally realized that there wasn't an ounce of goodness in me. Christ covers me with His righteousness, and any good I may do is because of the work of His Spirit within me.

This is found throughout the Scriptures and it becomes very obvious when looking at the life of the Apostle Paul who in the early part of His ministry called himself the least of the apostles, but the end of his life, he was calling himself the chief of sinners.

I loved what a friend of Jerry Bridges (author of Pursuit of Holiness) quoted from Bridges. Since the time of writing the book, God has taken him through a number of painful struggles in sanctification. He says, if he were to write that book again, he would write it differently. He said, the title should be called "The Pursuit of God". To pursue God is to pursue holiness, and that, In my humble opinion is the difference between Weslyen thinking and reformed thinking. Weslyen thinking is all about being holy. Reformed thinking is all about knowing Christ.

 

[Whitefield]

Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.

Do your mean Charles or John? Charles didn't do much preaching, and due to his continually good relationship with George Whitefield, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a reformed bone or two in his body; whereas John had a visible distaste for anything Reformed, including the Reformed articles in the official documents of the church he lived and died in.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.

Do your mean Charles or John? Charles didn't do much preaching, and due to his continually good relationship with George Whitefield, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a reformed bone or two in his body; whereas John had a visible distaste for anything Reformed, including the Reformed articles in the official documents of the church he lived and died in.

I meant John. Charles wrote respectable hymns.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.

Do your mean Charles or John? Charles didn't do much preaching, and due to his continually good relationship with George Whitefield, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a reformed bone or two in his body; whereas John had a visible distaste for anything Reformed, including the Reformed articles in the official documents of the church he lived and died in.

Yep, Charles was more of a hymn writer than a preacher. One of his hymns is one of my favorites.

"And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Saviour's blood?"
"Died He for me who caused His pain. For me who Him to death persued."
"Amazing love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?"
"Amazing love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?"

And then there's this verse...

"Long my imprisoned spirit lay fast bound in sin and nature's night."
"Thine eye diffused a quickening ray I woke the dungeon flamed with light."
"My chains fell off my heart was free I rose went forth and followed thee."
"My chains fell off my hert was free I rose went forth and followed thee."

 

[Craig]

Having come out of Free Methodism, which is Wesleyan/Holiness/Entire Sanctification/Perfectionism...I can tell you what the difference is.

Legalism. Man-made rules to live by and for the Christian who understands that sin is always present in him, he will be ruined by despair. I'm not saying this "could" happen...or "might" happen...I lived it. To the rest that don't despair of John Wesley's insipid, evil, hateful, blasphemous teachings...they, like it has been noted above, think they've conquered sin entirely. A pastor of my old church was highly regarded by the people...so much so that they said he had attained a state of being sinless!

Anyone can doll up their Pharisaism with biblical language, but that doesn't mean they've conveyed biblical content. There is no difference between Wesleyan "holiness" doctrine and Rome's doctrine of justification. Heck, they're basically canonizing people when they proclaim others (or themselves) are perfect.

 

[Jon 316]

Perhaps there are different interpretations of the Weslyian view therefore we are talking about different things.

Also, perhaps we misunderstand certain terms which are used in holiness circles.

Some key things are clear in this book I am reading

1) Sanctification is recognised as a process
2) Sanctification is based on the work of Christ and the Spirit of Christ and not outward performance.
3) The gospel provides victory over sin (not just forgiveness.
4) Christ living in me and through me is the key to Sanctification,
5) There was even mention of the means of grace in the process of sanctification.

Perhaps this book is a modified holiness view. But these principles seem scripturally sound to me.

 

[Hippo]

A quote from Ironside:

"Perhaps the saddest thing about the movement to which I have referred is the long list of shipwrecks concerning the faith to be attributed to its unsound instruction. Large numbers of persons seek 'holiness' for years only to find they have had the unattainable before them. Others profess to have received it, but are forced at last to own it was all a mistake. The result is sometimes that the mind gives way beneath the strain; but more frequently unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is the logical result. It is for persons dangerously near these shoals of infidelity and darkness that I have penned these papers. God's word remains true. He has not promised what He will not perform. It is you, dear troubled one, who have been misled by faulty teaching as to the true nature of sanctification, and the proper effects of the indwelling Spirit of God. Let neither gloomy unbelief nor melancholy disappointment hinder your . . . searching the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. And may God in His rich grace and mercy give every self-occupied reader to look away to Christ alone, 'who, of God, is made unto us wisdom: even righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.'

 

[Jon 316]

A quote from Ironside:

"Perhaps the saddest thing about the movement to which I have referred is the long list of shipwrecks concerning the faith to be attributed to its unsound instruction. Large numbers of persons seek 'holiness' for years only to find they have had the unattainable before them. Others profess to have received it, but are forced at last to own it was all a mistake. The result is sometimes that the mind gives way beneath the strain; but more frequently unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is the logical result. It is for persons dangerously near these shoals of infidelity and darkness that I have penned these papers. God's word remains true. He has not promised what He will not perform. It is you, dear troubled one, who have been misled by faulty teaching as to the true nature of sanctification, and the proper effects of the indwelling Spirit of God. Let neither gloomy unbelief nor melancholy disappointment hinder your . . . searching the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. And may God in His rich grace and mercy give every self-occupied reader to look away to Christ alone, 'who, of God, is made unto us wisdom: even righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.'

Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???

 

[Hippo]

A quote from Ironside:

"Perhaps the saddest thing about the movement to which I have referred is the long list of shipwrecks concerning the faith to be attributed to its unsound instruction. Large numbers of persons seek 'holiness' for years only to find they have had the unattainable before them. Others profess to have received it, but are forced at last to own it was all a mistake. The result is sometimes that the mind gives way beneath the strain; but more frequently unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is the logical result. It is for persons dangerously near these shoals of infidelity and darkness that I have penned these papers. God's word remains true. He has not promised what He will not perform. It is you, dear troubled one, who have been misled by faulty teaching as to the true nature of sanctification, and the proper effects of the indwelling Spirit of God. Let neither gloomy unbelief nor melancholy disappointment hinder your . . . searching the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. And may God in His rich grace and mercy give every self-occupied reader to look away to Christ alone, 'who, of God, is made unto us wisdom: even righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.'

Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???

And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?

 

[Jon 316]

A quote from Ironside:

Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???

And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?

I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?

 

[Hippo]

Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???

And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?

I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?

If you read Wesley this sinless state is often accompanied by some redefinition of sin to explain why these perfected saints still seem to us mortals to be not quite perfected.

This is the problem with practicing weslyn holiness, it either leads to sin not being seen as sin or to failure, or more importantly a perceived failure of God's promises. We are looking to our response not to God's person and historic work.

Of course sanctification is important and there is much in the Holiness movement that no one can argue with, but the doctrine as a whole verges on the diabolical.

I can point you to plenty of texts that show that our sinful nature will remain until we enter glory. As with all theology it is not a matter of throwing around seemingly opposing texts but looking at the issue systamatically.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

The proof text that people of the perfectionism persuasion usually like to point to outside of context is "Be Holy as my Father is Holy..."

 

[cih1355]

Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???

And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?

I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?

There can be an instance where a believer can overcome a particular temptation at a particular date and time, but he is not going to live his entire life in a state of sinless perfection 100% of the time.

 

[MrMerlin777]

And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?

I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?

There can be an instance where a believer can overcome a particular temptation at a particular date and time, but he is not going to live his entire life in a state of sinless perfection 100% of the time.

Well said.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

Frankly, these types of questions seem to be kinda like the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.

If one is to answer "no, we can't stop sinning", you may assume we are being lax on sin. However, if we answer "yes", we defy clear Biblical passages that seem to indicate we will continue to struggle with sin.

The Lord taught us to him daily, since the prayer includes "give us this day our daily bread", and within that daily prayer he taught us to pray "forgive us of our trespasses". We don't claim to be wiser than our Lord, and if he taught us to pray for forgiveness of our daily trespasses, we trust that the thrice holy God can find fault with our performance any day of the week.