| Re: |
Would you please let me have the source of the quotation you gave on Wesley?
I don't think it is a matter of different versions on this particular point as he was teaching sinless perfection and he would not change this view if he did indeed achieve it later. He would not go the opposite way - reducing the goalpost and saying that moral imperfections were allowable. He eventually lived up to his words pressumably not departed from them.
This issue is huge and not just a diagreement over inessentials.
The main thing Wesley changed on was that he thought that one could not fall from the state of entire sanctification but when he interviewed the many people who did claim it, they said that many or most did go through a period of losing it and regaining it.
Wesley did indeed say that we can be free fom sin in this life - this is what he is saying in Perfection, it is in another sermon that it MIGHT be interpreted that he is saying that moral imperfections will continue. I quote him again -
Can anything be more clear, than, (1.) That here also is as full and high a salvation as we have ever spoken of? (2.) That this is spoken of as receivable by mere faith, and as hindered only by unbelief? (3.) That this faith, and consequently the salvation which it brings, is spoken of as given in aninstant? (4.) That it is supposed that instant may be now? that we need not stay another moment? that "now," the very "now, is the accepted time? now is the day of" this full "salvation?" And, Lastly, that, if any speak otherwise, he is the person that brings new doctrine among us?
But whom then do you mean by 'one that is perfect?' We mean one in whom is 'the mind which was in Christ,' and who so 'walketh as Christ also walked;' a man 'that hath clean hands and a pure heart,' or that is [b]'cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit;' one in whom is 'no occasion of stumbling,' and who, accordingly, 'does not commit sin.'[/b] To declare this a little more particularly: We understand by that scriptural expression, 'a perfect man,' one in whom God hath fulfilled his faithful word, 'From all your filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you: I will also save you from all your uncleannesses.' We understand hereby, one whom God lath 'sanctified throughout in body, soul, and spirit;' one who 'walketh in the light as He is in the light, in whom is no darkness at all; the blood of Jesus Christ his Son having cleansed him from all sin.'
Full salvation - cessation of sin.
| 2010/3/13 6:05|
| Re: The necessity of a second blessing for entire sanctification|
see no 35 [url=http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Wesley/Preaching%20Wesley.htm]Preaching Wesley[/url]
Well what i read in the 14 vol of his complete works, by his own words is he says or writtes he has changed his book, or edited the contents of it during the years, several times, he does not say how much he changed or what exactly, just that he did. What he believed at 40 is not necessary what he believed at 80. Some small aspects could have changed. But its just speculation.
the thing i believe Wesley is right on was this:
(3) Believers have freedom from an evil nature. The apostle Paul states, I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20.) Do not these words reveal that Christians have been delivered from both inward and outward sin? All true believers have had their hearts cleansed by faith, and seek to be pure and holy. They have a new inward nature that affects the outside. Instead of anger, bitterness and unforgiveness there is the spirit of meekness, gentleness, and self-control. [b]If, as some say, we are only freed from sin at death, then does not this make death the saviour?[/b] Yes, we do allow sin into our lives, but through the Holy Spirit our consciences tell us that we must confess our sins so that the faithful and just Lord would forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9.)
| 2010/3/13 6:38||Profile|
| Re: |
He did say that he developed his theology over time - that is to be expected - a theology which remains the same is a dead one - but he also stressed that the main body of his teaching remained the same and what we have in the unadulterated Christian Perfection is what he taught throughout his ministry - it was only on minor issues that he changed like the one I mentioned, that he thought one could not fall from ES (entire sanctification)
I think it is unfair and incorrect to imply that he changed drastically.
The writer of that site you quoted deserves rebuke for the way he has doctored Wesley.
Yes indeed a Christian has been delivered and freed from sin and is now under the law of life in Christ Jesus, but the problems is that many think they are Christians when they are just believers. The scriptures are clear - Christians do not sin. 1John is talking about coming to that point - the point of cleansing from all sin.
| 2010/3/13 7:04|
| Re: procyon/pollux/suemarie/krautfrau|
He did say that he developed his theology over time - that is to be expected - a theology which remains the same is a dead one
I have observed the evolution of your own theology in your brief but frenetic writing projects as Procyon, Pollux, SueMarie and KrautFrau (known to archive surfers as Anonymous). I might even go so far as to say that, like Wesley, you can't make up your mind twice in a week what exactly you want to believe in, but your zeal for punishing error and correcting heretics remains constant. I am sure that when the Mods recognize you and/or get tired of your obsessive bickering and kick you off the forum again, you will get on another theological kick and make another comeback, maybe as SnoopDogmaDogg or Threadstarter or something like that.
| 2010/3/13 7:29|
| Re: |
The writer of that site you quoted deserves comdemnation for the way he has doctored Wesley.
No, nobody deserves condemnation for doctoring John Wesley; condemnation is not some cheap word to be thrown around in these discussions - and certainly not to be wished upon another believer as you are doing here.
Please change direction this thread is going, or it will be shut down.
Paul Frederick West
| 2010/3/13 7:56||Profile|
| Re: |
I have never used the names Procyon, Pollux, SueMarie and if I have been on this forum before as Anonymous, a name I never use, please produce evidence. I nearly always use my own name and have done so on some posts here. It is possible that I may have posted here before but as my memory is not good, I have forgotten. I have never changed my mind on sinless perfection. Please provide evidence for your accusations. If I need to apologise I will do so
| 2010/3/13 8:05|
| Re: |
I take it very seriously when someone changes someone elses doctrine to back up their own. If you disagree with this then you are entitled of course to your opinion. I am not sure what you mean by the direction this is going. Please explain. Thanks
| 2010/3/13 8:08|
| Re: |
I take it very seriously when someone changes someone elses doctrine to back up their own.
I understand. But you need to understand that what you've wished on another because of "doctoring Wesley", not even God Himself wishes on anyone. Instead of cursing another believer for their doctrinal stance of sanctification or how they treat Wesley (a mere man, prone to faults himself), just walk away. Bless your doctrinal enemies, bless and do not curse them. It matters not what your view is on sanctification, if you are not able to master this basic truth of Christianity.
If you disagree with this then you are entitled of course to your opinion
This is not an opinion, it is a SermonIndex guideline. I respectfully entreat you to acquiesce to our community rules of etiquette, or find another place on the internet to fellowship. Please do not will condemnation upon others in this forum.
Paul Frederick West
| 2010/3/13 8:24||Profile|
| Re: |
I think that perhaps I misused the word. I did not mean sent to hell which I think you mean. I just mean that what he did to Wesley or to anyone who does this sort of doctoring is pretty bad in my books.
I have changed the word to rebuke. I hope that is acceptable. I wonder if the words of LionGirder to me are acceptable? Accusations without evidence prejuring my reputation here?
| 2010/3/13 8:30|
| Re: |
LionGirder? Whoever heard of "girding up your lions?"
Come on, KrautFrau, it is always the same with you. You post your introduction in the wrong section, start with a tone of simpering humility, become increasingly belligerent, bury the forum under multiple threads all on the same subject and then get kicked out for verbally abusing everyone who disagrees with you (i.e., everyone) and taking a supercilious tone with the mods, like you are doing now.
| 2010/3/13 8:47|