Un-Wesleyan Wesleyanism.

Aussie52 · May 24, 2026

Over the last few years, I have come to embrace Wesleyan-Arminianism and have been graced with entire sanctification. As I do not live near a Wesleyan-Holiness Church, I have been spiritually fed by books from a Wesleyan-Holiness point of view. Some of this literature has been various Bible commentaries published by an American Wesleyan-Holiness denomination. This has been both a profitable and an alarming experience.
In studying these Bible commentaries, I have come across some things that I would not have expected in a Wesleyan-Holiness book.

1. In a commentary on Romans, the author repudiates the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.

2. In a commentary on 1 John, the author when dealing with chapter 3, makes some un-Wesleyan remarks. Where John writes, 'Whoever abides in Him does not sin' v6 and 'Whoever has been born of God does not sin' v9, the author states that this means, 'does not practice sin' or 'does not sin habitually'. Now as far as I can tell, the Greek does not sustain this translation. This also is not the view of John Wesley, Adam Clarke, John Fletcher and a host of Holiness commentators. They all concur that the one born of God does not sin, has been set free from the power of sin and does not knowingly disobey the law of God.

3. In a commentary on the book of Acts, the author questions whether one can treat the book as theology. In dealing with the events on the day of Pentecost, he belittles the Holiness Movement's use of using this event to teach the doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as entire sanctification.

So, I have been troubled by this un-Wesleyan presentation in commentaries, and unwarranted criticism of the Holiness Movement, all the time purporting to be Wesleyan.

I have noticed that many of these authors did post graduate studies in Calvinist leaning seminaries. I can only suspect that they have imbibed or have been influenced by Calvinistic doctrine, which I think is a shame.

Mark Quayle · May 24, 2026

I can't speak for Wesleyanism. Shoot, I can't even speak for Methodism, though I grew up in it, (after a fashion), and even though I hold more or less to what I see in Reformed Theology, I don't hold to even that for its own parameters. I suggest you give up attending to this and that and listen and assess what you read in scripture, (or whatever else you read, for that matter).

When people try to dissuade Wesleyans concerning that use of "does not sin", they use the actual Greek meanings. It simply is true, even if Wesleyanism is valid, that the Greek "continuous action" is the use in those verses. The Greek koine "present tense" MEANS continuous action—ongoing, but not necessarily even "right now". "...does not sin" necessarily, in the koine, means, "does not continue to sin", or, "does not continue in sin." Personally, I don't see why it should make much difference to Wesleyanism. If indeed they are right about this 'second work of grace', then the use of the passage fits either way. It just doesn't PROVE a 'second work of grace' according to good exegesis.

Aussie52 · May 25, 2026

Mark Quayle said:
I can't speak for Wesleyanism. Shoot, I can't even speak for Methodism, though I grew up in it, (after a fashion), and even though I hold more or less to what I see in Reformed Theology, I don't hold to even that for its own parameters. I suggest you give up attending to this and that and listen and assess what you read in scripture, (or whatever else you read, for that matter).

When people try to dissuade Wesleyans concerning that use of "does not sin", they use the actual Greek meanings. It simply is true, even if Wesleyanism is valid, that the Greek "continuous action" is the use in those verses. The Greek koine "present tense" MEANS continuous action—ongoing, but not necessarily even "right now". "...does not sin" necessarily, in the koine, means, "does not continue to sin", or, "does not continue in sin." Personally, I don't see why it should make much difference to Wesleyanism. If indeed they are right about this 'second work of grace', then the use of the passage fits either way. It just doesn't PROVE a 'second work of grace' according to good exegesis.

I believe one has to have the right and proper definition of sin. People use the word and have different meanings for it. One of the hurdles for many seeking victory over sin is that they have a wrong idea about sin, and thus never enter into Christ's victory.
If one believes the usual Calvinist definition, sin is a falling short of God's perfection, one will never be victorious, because that definition includes, mistakes, lapses in memory, errors in judgement and the like. In fact, this legal definition makes just being human a sin.
The Wesleyan view of sin is that it is a moral choice, a known transgression against the Law of God.
One Wesleyan denomination defines sin as.....

' We believe that acts of sin are committed by morally responsible persons choosing to do what they know is wrong or choosing not to do what they know is required. These acts of sin are therefore not to be confused with short-comings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other such deviations from a standard of perfect conduct which are the residual effects of the Fall'.

According to the moral definition, sin is a willful violation of a known law of God. It carries with it the moral responsibility of disobedience and rebellion against the law. The ethical/moral concept holds that a person is not accounted guilty by God for that which he did not know, could not have known, or could have done differently.

With this definition we can examine Scripture about the relationship of sin and the believer.

In Romans 6, Paul plainly states that the believer is to have nothing to do with sinning.
'Shall we continue in sin that the grace may abound? Certainly not!'
'How shall we who have died to sin live any longer in it?'
'For he who has died has been freed from sin'.
'For sin shall not have dominion over you'.

The plain meaning of these verses is that the believer has been set free from the power of sin and thus we are not to continue in sin, viz. continue sinning.

This lines up with the purpose of Christ's coming.
'you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins' Mt 1:21. Note, saving FROM their sins not IN their sins.

' For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin." 1 Jn3 :8,9. The main work of the devil is sin, and Jesus came to destroy it in our lives.

So, sin, as a moral transgression of the Law of God, is to have no place in a believer's life.

As Paul said, 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death' Rm 8:2.

The Bible and Wesleyan theology both teach that Christ's salvation saves the believer 'to the uttermost'. A life free from sin; from its penalty, from its power and from its presence.

Mark Quayle · May 25, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
I believe one has to have the right and proper definition of sin. People use the word and have different meanings for it. One of the hurdles for many seeking victory over sin is that they have a wrong idea about sin, and thus never enter into Christ's victory.
If one believes the usual Calvinist definition, sin is a falling short of God's perfection, one will never be victorious, because that definition includes, mistakes, lapses in memory, errors in judgement and the like. In fact, this legal definition makes just being human a sin.
The Wesleyan view of sin is that it is a moral choice, a known transgression against the Law of God.
One Wesleyan denomination defines sin as.....

' We believe that acts of sin are committed by morally responsible persons choosing to do what they know is wrong or choosing not to do what they know is required. These acts of sin are therefore not to be confused with short-comings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other such deviations from a standard of perfect conduct which are the residual effects of the Fall'.

According to the moral definition, sin is a willful violation of a known law of God. It carries with it the moral responsibility of disobedience and rebellion against the law. The ethical/moral concept holds that a person is not accounted guilty by God for that which he did not know, could not have known, or could have done differently.

With this definition we can examine Scripture about the relationship of sin and the believer.

In Romans 6, Paul plainly states that the believer is to have nothing to do with sinning.
'Shall we continue in sin that the grace may abound? Certainly not!'
'How shall we who have died to sin live any longer in it?'
'For he who has died has been freed from sin'.
'For sin shall not have dominion over you'.

The plain meaning of these verses is that the believer has been set free from the power of sin and thus we are not to continue in sin, viz. continue sinning.

This lines up with the purpose of Christ's coming.
'you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins' Mt 1:21. Note, saving FROM their sins not IN their sins.

' For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin." 1 Jn3 :8,9. The main work of the devil is sin, and Jesus came to destroy it in our lives.

So, sin, as a moral transgression of the Law of God, is to have no place in a believer's life.

As Paul said, 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death' Rm 8:2.

The Bible and Wesleyan theology both teach that Christ's salvation saves the believer 'to the uttermost'. A life free from sin; from its penalty, from its power and from its presence.

That's a nice presentation, but it doesn't answer your OP. Or, maybe I should say, if it answers your OP, it, discrediting the use of those verses that your Wesleyanism makes of them, discredits Wesleyanism altogether. That is, if Wesleyanism's use of those verses is typical of their use of the rest of scripture, then Wesleyanism is based on eisegesis and not exegesis. You are, in the OP, using your notions of sin and sanctification to derive your interpretation. That is error.

Doctrine is not how to look at scripture. Doctrine is derived from Scripture—not the other way around.

Aussie52 · May 25, 2026

Mark Quayle said:
That's a nice presentation, but it doesn't answer your OP. Or, maybe I should say, if it answers your OP, it, discrediting the use of those verses that your Wesleyanism makes of them, discredits Wesleyanism altogether. That is, if Wesleyanism's use of those verses is typical of their use of the rest of scripture, then Wesleyanism is based on eisegesis and not exegesis. You are, in the OP, using your notions of sin and sanctification to derive your interpretation. That is error.

Doctrine is not how to look at scripture. Doctrine is derived from Scripture—not the other way around.

Sorry, all but the last sentence does not make sense to me. As for the last sentence, I agree and endeavor to do so.

DuaneR · Tuesday at 2:04 PM

Aussie52 said:
I believe one has to have the right and proper definition of sin. People use the word and have different meanings for it. One of the hurdles for many seeking victory over sin is that they have a wrong idea about sin, and thus never enter into Christ's victory.

True. HOWEVER, one should look at the original words themselves. In the Hebrew OT you have chatah. In the NT Greek you have hamartia. Both of these words are archery terms meaning to aim at the target but miss the mark. (bulls eye)

Search

Search

Un-Wesleyan Wesleyanism.

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

More options

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

More options

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

More options

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

More options

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

More options

DuaneR

Member

More options

Similar threads