Before commencing the third installment of Tuesdays With Wesley, I thought I’d pause and give a disclaimer: I am not Wesleyan, nor is anyone involved with ex-icarus or Lexington Christian Fellowship. The only name we want to be associated with is Jesus Christ, the name above all names. As far as “isms” go, (and I will say this again in the same way it’s been said before in this blog) it’s not what I don’t know that scares me, but what everyone else thinks they know. Having said that, I present to you an interesting perspective on the issue of sin in believers, as seen through the eyes of Mr. Wesley. I believe it to be solidly biblical and very enlightening, but give no weight to it as inspired truth. This should serve as a good follow-up to last week’s installment, Christian Perfection.

One “David h” commented on last week’s post by pointing out that Christians still have growing to do, even after being perfected. Wesley concurrently notes the error in the myth of “perfection of degrees,” or no longer needing any further maturation. Sermon 13: On Sin in Believers gives an explanation of the ongoing struggle between nature and grace, Spirit and flesh, in the heart of even sanctified believers. Before getting too hot and heavy, Wesley defines his terms and boundaries like a good theologian:

“By sin, I here understand inward sin; any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ. The question is not concerning outward sin; whether a child of God commits sin or no. We all agree and earnestly maintain, ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil.’ We agree, ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.’ Neither do we now inquire whether inward sin will always remain in the children of God; whether sin will continue in the soul as long as it continues in the body: Nor yet do we inquire whether a justified person may relapse either into inward or outward sin…”

Oddly enough, the main objection Wesley goes on to address is not the commonly held position that Christians still commit outward sin. He argues against the Moravian view of absolute imputed holiness, that is, from the moment you are saved, you are never more nor less holy. He gives a very brief dismissal of the former position, and instead spends the bulk of his time on the latter, arguing from scripture, tradition, and experience for an ongoing renewal of the believer.

This sermon pretty much writes itself from the definitions. I’m sorry to everyone who thought this was going to be more complicated, but “outward sins” are not heavily treated beyond the section above. What Wesley would call inward sin, others may call “sins of omission” or “points of growth.” Even these, he says, have no power over us after we are justified. They remain, but they do not reign. We are told to fight against them and prayerfully watch out for them, lest we fall into temptation.

So, to sum up Wesley’s view of inward sin in believers: 1) There exist in every believer two natures, the Spirit and the flesh, 2) sanctification is a process of putting to death by the Spirit what is fleshly in us, and 3) the flesh does not reign in a heart occupied by the Spirit.

To sum up his view of outward sin in believers: 1) Maybe next time.

And now, blogger world, bring the rain. You scare me to death.