Per John Wesley concerning Christian perfection. I have emphasized some phrases. Note that Wesley separates "sins" from "trespasses" so when he says someone who has attained Christian Perfection, he is only indicating voluntary sins. The rest he calls "transgressions" or "mistakes" but all are in need of Christ's atonement, without which would expose to eternal damnation.
So for any who believe that Wesley is stating that a person reaches a state of flawlessness, or sinlessness in the sense that one is free of all error or wrongdoing, no longer in need of God's grace or atonement, it is not at all the case.
------------
Q. [1] What is Christian perfection?
A. The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed by pure love.
Q. [2] Do you affirm that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake?
A. I continually affirm quite the contrary, and always have done so.
Q. [3.] But how can every thought, word, and work be governed by pure love, and the man be subject at the same time to ignorance and mistake?
A. I see no contradiction here. “A man may be filled with pure love, and still be liable to mistake.” Indeed I do not expect to be freed from actual mistakes till this mortal puts on immortality. I believe this to be a natural consequence of the soul’s dwelling in flesh and blood. For we cannot now think at all but by the mediation of those bodily organs which have suffered equally with the rest of our frame. And hence we cannot avoid sometimes thinking wrong, till this corruptible shall have put on incorruption. But we may carry this thought farther yet. A mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a mistake in practice. For instance: Mr. de Renty’s mistake touching the nature of mortification, arising from prejudice of education, occasioned that practical mistake, his wearing an iron girdle. And a thousand such instances there may be, even in those who are in the highest state of grace. Yet where every word and action springs from love, such a mistake is not properly a sin. However, it cannot bear the rigour of God’s justice, but needs the atoning blood.
Q. [4.] What was the judgment of all our brethren who met at Bristol in August 1758 on this head?
A. It was expressed in these words: 1) Everyone may mistake as long as he lives. 2) A mistake in opinion may occasion a mistake in practice. 3) Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect law. Therefore, 4) every such mistake, were it not for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal damnation. 5) It follows that the most perfect have continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as well as for their brethren, “Forgive us our trespasses.” This easily accounts for what might otherwise seem to be utterly unaccountable; namely, that those who are not offended when we speak of the highest degree of love, yet will not hear of living without sin. The reason is, they know all men are liable to mistake, and that in practice as well as in judgment. But they do not know, or do not observe, that this is not sin if love is the sole principle of action.
Q. [5.] But still, if they live without sin, does not this exclude the necessity of a mediator? At least, is it not plain that they stand no longer in need of Christ in his priestly office?
A. Far from it. None feel their need of Christ like these; none so entirely depend upon him. For Christ does not give life to the soul separate from, but in and with himself. Hence his words are equally true of all men, in whatsoever state of grace they are: “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me; without” (or separate from) “me, ye can do nothing.” In every state we need Christ in the following respects: 1) Whatever grace we receive, it is a free gift from him. 2) We receive it as his purchase, merely in consideration of the price he paid. 3) We have this grace not only from Christ, but in him. For our perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes by the sap derived from its own root, but, as was said before, like that of a branch, which, united to the vine, bears fruit, but severed from it “is dried up and withered.” 4) All our blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, depend on his intercession for us, which is one branch of his priestly office, whereof therefore we have always equal need. 5) The best of men still need Christ in his priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their shortcomings (as some not improperly speak), their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend, may appear from the words of St. Paul: “He that loveth hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law.” Now mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are no way contrary to love, nor therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin.
[Q. 6 … A.] To explain myself a little farther on this head: 1) Not only sin properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law, but sin, improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. 2) 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. 3) Therefore “sinless perfection” is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. 4) I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. 5) Such transgressions you may call “sins” if you please. I do not, for the reasons above mentioned.
Q. [7.] What advice would you give to those that do and those that do not call them so?
A. Let those who do not call them “sins” never think that themselves or any other persons are in such a state as that they can stand before infinite justice without a mediator. This must argue either the deepest ignorance, or the highest arrogance and presumption.
