Rev J MacLeod
In general terms, the false, Perfectionist view of sanctification is that it is possible for a Christian in this world to “become perfectly free from sin and to live in conformity to the law under which he now lives”. God expressly commands, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,” and this, the Perfectionists say, must be attainable since He cannot command impossibilities and since He has made abundant provision in the gospel to meet this requirement.
The various Perfectionist theories propounded, while they all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men in this life to attain to a state in which they may “habitually and perfectly” fulfill all their obligations, differ very much among themselves as to the true definition of sin, and what the law is that men are now obliged to fulfill – and as to the means whereby this perfection may be obtained, whether by nature or by grace. As a doctrine, Perfectionism has no consecutive history, but in the New Testament Church its beginnings can be traced back to Pelagius. His basic contention was that the nature of man was uninjured by the Fall and that it is essential to his liberty and responsibility that he is as able to cease from sin as to continue in it. This clearly influenced those who followed him and subscribed to his view of sanctification.
This is true of the Roman Catholic theologians who hold his view, although the discussions of the Council of Trent2 on the subject are, in the words of A A Hodge, typically “studiously ambiguous”. The Arminian view is best known in the form propounded by John Wesley, who, although he never claimed perfection for himself, was the one through whom Perfectionism was first given standing in the Protestant Churches. The Oberlin theologians3, in putting forward their interpretation of the doctrine, denied that it was derived from the Methodists – or any previous movement, for that matter – but there is little doubt that here they were considerably influenced by Wesley, and the very principles underlying the theology of the Oberlin school were, according to B B Warfield, very much in affinity with the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian theories of human nature. These four main interpretations of the Perfectionist view of sanctification, namely, the Pelagian, the Roman Catholic, the Arminian and the Oberlin will now be considered more fully.
The Pelagian view
of perfectionism distinctively maintained that, since man’s nature was not radically corrupted by the Fall, he still retained the ability, by the exercise of natural faculties, to fulfill all the duties required of him without the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit. Perfection was the crown of natural processes, the effect of grace being mainly to render obedience to the divine law easier. The law to which perfect conformity is possible in this life, according to Pelagius, is the moral law in all its strictness, and he maintained that, because man’s natural powers are fully competent, this perfection is attainable, and it is therefore possible for man to live without sin, sin being defined as “the voluntary transgression of known law”.
In the case of the individual person, these Perfectionists claim, the requirements of the law are measured by the individual’s ability and opportunities for acquiring knowledge. The grace of God which assists the individual to obtain this standard is “the goodness of God in so constituting our natures that they can completely obey the law in virtue of our free agency; the revelations, precepts and example of Christ; the pardon of sins committed
2Sat in the mid-sixteenth century and set in stone the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.
3The theologians of Oberlin College, in Ohio.
before conversion and the moral influences of the truths and of the circumstances in which we are placed”. This theory of Perfectionism, it has been asserted, is “the only perfectly consistent theory of perfection ever ventilated, and in the same proportion it is the most thoroughly unchristian”. It is very clearly naturalistic rather than distinctively Christian and was, on this account, condemned at the Council of Carthage (AD 418).
The Roman Catholic theory
also regards the original law of God as the standard of perfection, but differs from the Pelagian theory in maintaining that the demands of this law are adjusted to fallen man’s powers, this ruling of the demands being of grace for the sake of the merits of Christ. Obedience to the law, they say, must be possible to those upon whom it is binding, since God does not command impossibilities. The Council of Trent determined that to those infused with baptismal grace, by which all of the nature of sin is removed from the soul, perfect obedience is possible and nothing need hinder their full conformity to the divine law. They may avoid all sin, and good works performed in this state of grace are perfect and free from all taint of sin.
But the law to which the regenerate may – and, it is claimed, often do – render perfect obedience is not, as pointed out above, the absolute moral law, but the law so modified as to be accommodated to the fallen condition of man. It is to be distinguished from the perfect law of love. Only the law in its accommodated form is binding upon all because, they say, that is all that can justly be required of man in his present state. This relaxed law may, and ought to be, obeyed and, when this obedience is accomplished, the Christian man is then perfect. This perfection, however, does not imply the highest degree of moral excellence, for an obedience beyond the demands of the law may be offered. This is designated a work of supererogation and constitutes the merits of the saints. Further, those who attain to perfection are not free from venial sins – that is, sins which do not bring the soul under condemnation, though these may be committed without prejudice to their perfect state. Such are reckoned as condemned by the highest law of love and, in fact, judged by the law to which obligation is now due, yet are not properly sins at all but defects or signs of concupiscence for which the perfect are no longer accountable.
Since in the Romish view, divine grace precedes, accompanies and follows good works, as defined above, perfection is to be attained by seeking this grace through the “sacramental and priestly channels” which Christ has instituted in His Church, and especially by observing “works of prayer, fasting, alms deeds, together with the acquisition of supererogatory merit by the fulfilment of the counsels of Christ to chastity, obedience and voluntary poverty. In general it may be said that the Romish theory is consistent but, at the same time, it is contrary to the teaching of the Word of God regarding the true nature of sin; the nature of God’s holy law, which is essentially immutable; and the nature of good works which the Word of God in no way considers meritorious or supererogatory, in the Romish sense.
The Arminian doctrine
of Christian Perfection found a starting point in the teaching of the Remonstrant divines.4 Arminius himself declared that his mind was in suspense on this subject, but his immediate successors, although their views lacked clear definition, developed the theory of perfection which again embraces complete conformity to the law. Again ability and responsibility are reckoned as co-extensive – the law, as in the Pelagian and Romish theories, is not the original moral law in all its strictness, but as accommodated to the enfeebled powers of man. Thus, it was claimed, man can live free from sin and is able to exercise all right affections and discharge all duties. It was apparently a perfection of three degrees: first, that of beginners; then, that of proficients; and finally, that of the truly perfect.
Of this last stage, little appears to have been positively taught, except that it is asserted that such people had subdued the habit of sin and took delight in the practice of virtue. Episcopius5 defines this perfection as follows: “A man can, with the assurance of divine grace, keep all the commandments of God perfectly, according to the gospel or covenant of grace. The highest evangelical perfection (for we are not teaching a legal perfection, which includes sinlessness entire in all respects and in the highest degree and excludes all imperfection and infirmity, for this we believe to be impossible), embraces two things: first, a perfection proportioned to the powers of each individual; second, a desire of making continual progress and increasing one’s strength more and more”.
The Arminian doctrine came to be more clearly defined and developed in Methodism. Personal holiness was one of the cardinal doctrines emphasised by the Methodist movement, and John Wesley explicated and defended this interpretation offered in his writings, especially in his book, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. His understanding of perfection was that love is the perfect good, the sum of the perfect law and that a perfect Christian is one who loves the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind and strength. “This”, said Wesley, “implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words and actions are governed by love.”
“Pure love reigning alone in the heart and life – this is the whole of scriptural perfection.” Wesley conceded that one filled with pure love might make a mistake that would occasion a transgression of God’s perfect law and thus require Christ’s atonement, but it was his opinion that such an error is not properly called sin.
To reach this conclusion, he distinguished between what he described as sin properly so called – that is, “a voluntary transgression of a known law” – and sin, improperly so called, that is “an involuntary transgression of the divine law, known or unknown”. He declared, “I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality”. These violations of the original and absolute law of God are not counted to the believer for sin, according to Wesley, since for him Christ has been made the end of that law for righteousness. Being now subject only to the “law of Christ”, that only is sin to the Christian which is a violation of this law of love.
No man living, according to the Methodist doctrine, is bound to observe the Adamic covenant more than the Mosaic law – that is, it is not the condition either of present or future salvation, because “the gospel, which is the law of love, ‘the law of liberty’, offers salvation upon other terms and yet provides the vindication of the broken law. The condition of justification at first is faith alone, and the condition of continued acceptance is faith working by love. . . . Perfect faith and perfect love is Christian perfection. Christian character is estimated by the conditions of the gospel: Christian perfection implies the perfect performance of these conditions and nothing more.”
As to when perfection is attained in life, Wesley contends that it happens instantaneously, being wrought by faith in a moment, and this is generally before death. Nevertheless it should be striven for and expected every moment, and it often occurs years before death. The Christian life begins with justification, when man’s sin is forgiven, and the life continues from this point by a process of sanctification which involves the gradual removal of all inward sin. Perfection is reached in the instant that all sin is removed, the warfare of the flesh against the Spirit ceases, and man is entirely sanctified. For this reason, Wesley says, it can be conceived of as both gradual and instantaneous. From many aspects, the Wesleyan doctrine is scripturally unsound and inconsistent with the principles of Christianity, especially with regard to the nature of sin, the function of faith in justification, and man’s relationships to God’s changeless law which still remains his rule of life and action, Christ being the end of the law for righteousness to the believer in relation to justification.
4Dutch theologians who promoted Arminian doctrine in the period leading up to the Synod of Dort in 1618. See the series of articles by Jan Freeke on “Synod of Dort & Arminian Controversy”, in the issues from January to March this year.
5A Dutch theologian (1583-1643), one of the Remonstrants.