One of the distinctions of Wesleyan theology and the denominations that have spawned from it is the doctrine of Christian Perfection. Many assume that the Wesley brothers were in agreement and that the modern view expresses their consensus. That’s not really true.
What was Charles Wesley’s view of Christian Perfection? Charles Wesley viewed Christian Perfection as one of the two great truths of the eternal gospel. However, his view of perfection was not the same as his brother John’s. Charles held to a higher view of perfection that was likely only to be fully experienced near the point of death. He also expressed the view that anyone who claimed to have perfection was testifying against themselves and exhibiting clear proof that they were not yet perfect.
This important doctrine is worth a much closer look.
The Other Great Truth
The power and seal of God is never wanting while I declare the two great truths of the everlasting gospel: universal redemption and Christian perfection.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Sunday, July 12, 1741, emphasis original.
We took a closer look at the first great truth, universal redemption, in this post. Just like with universal redemption, the terminology of Christian perfection is easily misunderstood.
Charles and John did not agree on this doctrine. It was a source of some controversy as their disagreement became known amongst the Methodists.
Charles and John had many conversations about this doctrine. It was also the topic of some of the Methodist conferences in order to attempt to articulate a clear and consistent doctrinal statement.
The modern understanding and position held by modern Wesleyan and Holiness denominations is closer to John’s position than to Charles’s. To understand Charles’s position, we need to lay down our assumptions and preconceptions. We need to allow Charles to define his own terms.
A Foundation for Perfection
Christian perfection is a doctrine that falls under the broader theological umbrella of sanctification. Sanctification is the process by which someone who is justified grows in holiness and Christ-likeness.
Charles’s theology held that the imago Dei (the image of God) was tarnished in the fall. The one thing humans were truly needful of was to have this image repaired.
To recover our first estate, from which we are thus fallen, is the one thing now needful–to re-exchange the image of Satan for the image of God, bondage for freedom, sickness for health. Our one business is to raze out of our souls the likeness of our destroyer, and to be born again, to be formed anew after the likeness of our Creator.
Charles Wesley, from his sermon on Luke 10:42, “The One Thing Needful.”
Charles Wesley was justified by faith on May 21, 1738. (For more on the conversion of Charles Wesley, see this post.) After this he began to find victory over sin that previously held him in bondage.
Less than a week after his conversion Charles records,
Soon after I was a little cast down by feeling some temptation and foreseeing more but God lifted me up by his word [Isaiah 43:1-2] …This promise was fulfilled in me when, under frequent motions of sin, I looked up to Christ, and found them broken down continually.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Thursday, May 25, 1738.
Charles had previously stumbled over the error of attempting to reverse the order of justification and sanctification. He was able to articulate this truth to a man named Mr. William Law who had profoundly impacted Charles’s life by his book, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (link to Amazon).
I told him he was my schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, but the reason why I did not come sooner to him was my seeking to be sanctified before I was justified.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Friday, August 10, 1739.
Sanctification before justification was a stumbling block to salvation. However, sanctification following justification was one of the great truths of the eternal gospel.
Charles never lost his emphasis on holiness. He did begin to preach boldly and teach clearly that sanctification and holiness was not the means to salvation. It was the inevitable fruit of true salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
From this foundation, Charles was clear about what he thought Christian perfection was. This is the positive definition. As he preached and taught on his view of holiness, the disagreement with his brother John became more apparent.
By contrasting these different views, we can begin to define what Christian perfection is not. This is the negative definition. We’ll consider both the positive and the negative definitions on their own.
Perfection Defined Positively
In Charles’s own experience, he found that victory over sin and success in ministry was often followed soon after by more temptation.
This success was followed with inward trials, but at the same time I experienced the superior power of Christ.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Sunday, May 28, 1738.
While this wasn’t pleasant, it was reason to rejoice in God’s grace. This grace was given to bring edification to others.
“When I am weak, then I am strong,” –for others, not myself. After preaching, the messenger of Satan came. He seldom fails me after success. But God, I knew, will avenge me of mine adversary.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Monday, September 17, 1739.
Charles also realized that when he wrestled with sin prior to justification he had a lower view of the true power of sin. It was only after his justification that he experienced the true power of sin and the true power of Christ.
I never knew the energy of sin till now that I experience the superior strength of Christ.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Tuesday, June 6, 1738.
Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. Not to allow Charles to continue in sin. But to give victory over that sin and allow him to walk in true freedom. And this grace was given so that Christians could continue to grow in grace, with the end being perfection.
Exhorted them to hold fast whereunto they had attained, and never to forsake the holy ordinances; to avoid all reasonings and disputes about their faith; and to go on to perfection.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry, Easter Sunday, April 6, 1740.
Charles didn’t teach that Christians should be satisfied with their current victory. They certainly shouldn’t go backward, either. Instead, they should press on to perfection. Never stopping until, by grace, they attained it to the glory of God.
The end, perfection, was the fullness of Christian salvation. Although Charles would agree that a Christian is “saved” at the moment of faith. However, this does not mean that they have everything at that moment.
I found myself, after this gracious visitation, more desirous and able to pray, more afraid of sin, more earnestly longing for deliverance and the fullness of Christian salvation.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Wednesday, August 6, 1740.
As he preached on the fullness of salvation, Charles was excited to gain these things in the future.
Was greatly assisted in the evening to preach the Christian perfection–that is, utter dominion over sin; constant peace, and love, and joy in the Holy Ghost; the full assurance of faith, righteousness, and true holiness. I see more and more into the height of our privileges, and that God will give them to me.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Friday, September 26, 1740, bold added.
For Charles, this pursuit and future hope was exciting. Charles looked forward to growing in grace. He was confident that the path of sanctification would end, eventually, in the height of full salvation.
These were not yet Charles’s in full. Only in part. He was confident God would give them to him in the future. His confidence was rooted in the teaching of Scripture.
God … opened my eyes to see the promise of holiness or perfection, not in some, but in almost every Scripture.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Monday, September 29, 1740.
This was necessary. Because without holiness no one can see the Lord. No one could dwell in His presence. Charles saw the evidence of perfection in Christians on the verge of death. As they passed from this life into the next, they experienced perfection necessarily. Without it, they wouldn’t be able to see their God.
In this light we can better understand Charles Wesley’s fascination and longing for death. (For more on this, check out our post Charles Wesley on Death.)
Was much revived by the sight of Margaret Thomas, dying in the highest triumph of faith. … Her hope was now full of immortality. She had no desire of life or death, or ease in her great pain. God had finished his work, and her will was quite swallowed up in his. This is that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Thursday, October 9, 1740.
As death approached, the will of Christians was more and more dissolved.
The angel of death was coming and but a few moments between her and blessed eternity. … She replied, “All is alike to me, let Christ choose. I have no will of my own.” This is that holiness, or absolute resignation, or Christian perfection!
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Wednesday, May 6, 1741, bold added.
Charles viewed the pursuit of perfection as a cure-all for other dangers. To think it was impossible to fall away or to sin after justification were great errors. Instead, pursuing holiness and growing in the grace of God was a recipe for faithfulness.
God be praised, there is some ground for that complaint of a predestinarian that the plague of perfection reigns at Bristol, and many of the Welsh catch it. O that all mankind were infected with this plague, if it is a plague to be healed of every plague.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Tuesday, July 28, 1741.
Charles is being sarcastic. He was certainly against the Calvinistic view of absolute predestination. (For more on this, see our post Charles Wesley Against Calvinism.) What this predestinarian views as a plague, Charles views as a healing from all plagues. It is a reason to praise God.
Charles viewed perfection as a sure hope for Christians. It was a second work of God. It was the accomplishment of their sanctification, accomplished at the end of their earthly walk.
In that moment [he had] received remission of sins. He had heard nothing farther and yet wanted something more. He knew not what, till God sent him hither. Now he rejoices in hope of redemption from all iniquity.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Sunday, August 2, 1741.
Remission of sins at justification was salvation. Full salvation would come in the future with the redemption from all iniquity. This new hope was built from Charles preaching that Christ is the Savior from sin.
They expressed much satisfaction in the joyful tidings of a Savior from sin.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Sunday, September 16, 1744, emphasis original.
Charles didn’t just preach Christ as a Savior from the penalty of sin. As the Savior from all sin, Christ brought a full salvation. As we grow in salvation, we experience more and more with a joyous hope in His grace bringing us to the height of His promises in His glorious presence.
Charles longed for Christians to understand this truth.
To the bands I explained the nature of Christian perfection, another name for Christian salvation.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Sunday, September 21, 1746.
Anything less than sanctification following justification with the earnest hope of complete perfection in conformity to the image of Christ at the end before entering His blessed presence for eternity was not true salvation.
This is how Charles defined Christian perfection. It was contrasted by false and lesser versions and perversions.
Charles insisted on freedom from sin being a mark of true justification. He also expected that this freedom would grow until it reached perfection. Christians should labor to pursue this growth in holiness by the grace of God.
I insisted largely on freedom from sin, as the lowest mark of faith, and the necessity of laboring after holiness.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Wednesday, September 29, 1756.
Early in Charles’s preaching ministry he said that justification by faith was his favorite subject. Over time, he found a new favorite.
I discoursed on my favorite subject, “I will bring the third part through the fire.” We glorified God in the fire, and rejoiced in hope of coming forth as gold.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Saturday, October 2, 1756.
Seventeen years after declaring his favorite subject was justification Charles stated plainly that his favorite subject was sanctification.
Charles viewed this life, with all its struggles and difficulty, as God’s refining fire. Coming forth as gold was the end result. It was the perfection Christians looked forward to. Understanding the end helped Charles to understand and rejoice in the refining process.
Perfection Defined Negatively
Charles records a meeting with a man whom Charles believed held to a strange doctrine. This was the view that assurance of salvation can only come from someone who is completely sanctified.
With Mr Stonehouse–possessed with a strange fancy that a man must be wholly sanctified before he can know that he is justified.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Saturday, August 26, 1738.
Charles disagreed with this strange fancy. He denied that you must be entirely sanctified before you could be assured that you were justified in the sight of God by faith in Christ alone.
Charles differed from John and others in his view on the possibility of attaining perfection in this life. It seems that Charles’s view on this changed over time. He began by saying it was not able to be found in this life.
The Prophet Wise asked, “Can a man attain perfection here?” I answered, “No.” The prophetess began groaning. I turned and said, “If you have anything to speak, speak it.” She lifted up her voice, like the lady on the tripod, and cried out vehemently, “Look for perfection, I say, absolute perfection!” I was minded to rebuke her. But God gave me uncommon recollection, and command of spirit, so that I sat quiet, and replied not.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Thursday, June 7, 1739, bold added.
Charles expressly denied the ability of Christians to cease from all sin in this life.
We can never conquer all sin; we must sin sometimes.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Friday, April 24, 1741, emphasis original.
Charles viewed the false ideas of perfection being espoused by some of his contemporaries as a dreadful and dangerous doctrine. He didn’t deny that Christians would be saved from all sin eventually, but he did reject it being characteristic of the Christians normal, everyday life.
Our thanksgiving notes multiply more and more, being convinced of judgment or that dreadful perfection, the living without sin. One wrote thus, “There was not a word came out of the mouth last night but I could apply it to my own soul, and witness it the doctrine of Christ. I know that Christ is a whole Saviour. I know the blood of Christ has washed away all my sins. I am sure the Lord will make me perfect in love, before I go hence, and am no more seen.”
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Friday, April 25, 1741, bold added.
Whole salvation was coming. It is a future hope for genuine Christians. It will happen before we go to see our Lord face to face.
Charles viewed people who professed to have obtained perfection in this life as liars and hypocrites.
The woman who keeps the Society house could not be satisfied acquainting me how rich and strong she was in grace, that she could not be proud, could not be deceived, could not fall, etc. I assured her a common harlot was in a far better state. But she was above all reproof, or conviction. … God deliver us from these saints of the devil’s making! One such more hinders the work than a hundred drunkards.
Charles Wesley, MS Journal entry Sunday, July 6, 1746, bold added.
Those who claimed perfection, Charles called “saints of the devil’s making.” They were not examples to be followed or praised. They were hindrances to the work of the ministry.
Charles also took issue with lesser, or qualified versions of perfection like his brother John proposed.
John thought that perfection was a separate, instantaneous work of God which brought the will of a Christian into inner purity of intention. This still allowed for growth while being a gift that could be expected and/or received by Christians at any time after their justification.
John’s modified perfection was a view that was too low for Charles as he read Scripture. The qualifications made it something less than full perfection and restoration of the divine image. Therefore, these lesser views were rejected as something less than true perfection.
The driving force behind John’s theology seemed to be experiential. John built a theology of perfection based on observation of other Christians. However, Charles had also observed people laying hold of the higher form of perfection.
At the precipice of death. Not before.
John’s lowered standard which only applied to the will (or “volition”) was witnessed in many serious Christians.
This dispute between the brothers was becoming more apparent in the early 1760’s. Prior to this time, John Wesley had opportunity to edit many of Charles’s published hymns. As a result, John had smoothed over some of these disagreements. But the Short Hymns on Select Passages of Scripture published in 1762 were published without John’s edits.
Charles explained his purpose for publishing these hymns in the preface.
Several of the hymns are intended to prove, and several to guard, the doctrine of Christian Perfection. I durst not publish one without the other.
In Tyson, Charles Wesley: A Reader, 378.
This caused a stir amongst some of the Methodists. It was making the divide between the doctrine of the Wesley brothers abundantly clear.
John’s complaints about Charles’s publication are captured in a letter to Dorothy Furly written September 15, 1762.
While we breathe we shall more or less mistake. If, therefore, Christian Perfection implies this, we must not expect it till after death. I want you to be all love. This is the Perfection I believe and teach. And this perfection is consistent with a thousand nervous disorders, which that high-strained perfection is not. … Take care you are not hurt by anything in the Short Hymns contrary to the doctrines you have long received.
Letter from John Wesley to Dorothy Furly, in Tyson, A Reader, 378-9, bold added.
John refers to the perfection Charles teaches as “high-strained perfection.” John’s perfection allowed for mistakes. Charles’s perfection did not.
In 1764 John wrote to Charles:
One word more, concerning setting perfection too high. That perfection which I believe, I can boldly preach, because I think I see five hundred witnesses of it. Of that perfection which you preach, you do not even see any witnesses at all. … Therefore, I still think to set perfection so high is effectually to renounce it.
John Wesley’s Letter to Charles, July 9, 1764, in Tyson, A Reader, 384.
Yet, Charles wasn’t really looking for living examples of perfection. Charles did not expect to find witnesses of perfection amongst imperfect humans like John. Charles found his examples on their death-bed, about to enter into their Master’s rest and blessed presence.
Charles also went so far as to say that any and all who claim to have become perfect, deny and nullify perfection by their professing it!
Through all the precious promises
I find fulfill’d in Jesu’s love,
If perfect I myself profess,
My own profession I disprove:
The purest saint that lives below
Doth his own sanctity disclaim,
The wisest owns, I nothing know,
The holiest cries, I nothing am!
Charles Wesley, Short Hymn on Job 9:20
Such a claim made John’s profession of his own perfection and the others, too, as foolishness. Proof they were not yet perfect. True perfection was to be hidden in the heart, not pridefully flaunted. Therefore, professing to be perfect you prove yourself a prideful fool.
Charles thought the holier one became, and the closer they walked with God, the more they would see their own sinfulness in the light of His perfection. Charles expected a miraculous work of God to restore the image of God fully in the moments before the Christian went to be with their Lord. Only God could make this impossible transformation possible.
John opted for a version of perfection that was less than perfect. This was not the perfection that Charles taught Christians to long for.
Summary of Charles’s Theology of Christian Perfection
Christian perfection is:
- Complete, full, and utter dominion over sin
- Constant peace, love, and joy in the Holy Spirit
- The full assurance of faith, righteousness, and true holiness
- The human will is completely swallowed up in the will of God and the Christian no longer has a will of their own
- It is found at or near death
- It is true perfection, sinlessness, and freedom from iniquity and unrighteousness
- It is only possible by the transformative grace of God
- It is the end of sanctification
- It is the full restoration of the imago Dei, the Image of God, which was lost at the Fall.
Christian perfection is not:
- Volitional perfection only, which allows for mistakes
- To be expected long before biological death
- To be professed as a present possession by anyone
- Less than true “perfection”
- Something that earns salvation or results in justification
- A basis for assurance of justification.
Related Question
Did John Wesley teach sinless perfectionism? John Wesley defined perfection in a letter to Charles in 1767 as “the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man ruling all the tempers, words, and action, the whole heart, and the whole life. I do not include an impossibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole.” It did not account for sins of ignorance or mistakes. Therefore, it was not unqualified sinless perfection.
0 Comments