| Each
month the editor welcomes a panel of experts to answer your questions
on subjects such as doctrine, theology, Christian living, and the
church. To submit questions to Holiness Today click
here. |
| |
|
 |
The Wesleyan
definition of an act of sin is “a
willful transgression of a known law of God.”
Two questions: first, what do we as Nazarenes under-stand John Wesley
to have meant by a “law
of God”; and
second, if we
do not know a particular law, are we accountable for not abiding by
it? |
| |
|
 |
Wesley
often defined sin properly so-called as a voluntary transgression
of a known law of God. But he also insisted that even sins improperly
so-called—involuntary transgressions, known or unknown—need
the atoning blood of Christ.
Wesley presumed that only moral (not ceremonial) laws applied to Christians
and that love was the goal of all such laws. Although God saves sinners
by faith in Christ alone, faithfulness reestablishes the law of love
and expresses itself in love. The Holy Spirit empowers Christians
to fulfill the whole law, to obey the twofold love command.
Wesley understood scriptural holiness as “love
excluding sin”;
that is, loving God with all one’s
heart, soul, mind, and strength and one’s
neighbor as oneself. Those who love God are not content merely to
avoid evil. God’s
love motivates them to do good of every possible kind, in every possible
degree, and to all, as time and opportunity allow. They would never
take refuge in the illusion that ignorance is bliss.
Those who have been called to such radical obedience may be unconcerned
about particular laws because they always pursue willing and universal
obedience. They seek constantly to know more what love demands, how
they may obey God more fully, how they may better serve their neighbors
near or far. Real Christians would never think of neglecting the study
of Scripture or any other means of grace. Those who actively seek
to remain ignorant of the will of God in order to shirk the call to
obedience not only have a narrow and superficial understanding of
sin, they are not Christians at all.—gl
|
| |
|
|
By “law
of God,” Wesley
and his ecclesiastical descendants surely meant the revelation of
God in Christ and the Bible. There is no giant code of regulations,
no massive secret code that puts up a
“you’ve
got sin” sign
on God’s celestial
computer every time you stumble. God’s
will or law is no mystery. Soak yourself in the Ten Commandments (Exodus
20), the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7), and 1 Corinthians
13, and your nagging questions about God’s
standard will evaporate.
Regarding sin only as a willful transgression of a known law gives
no license to hide in blissful ignorance of God’s
commandments. Wesley called that “culpable
neglect,”
a sin that brings condemnation.
Coastal peoples living along the latitudes from eastern Siberia to
Greenland are said to have a dozen words for snow. Falling snow, blowing
snow, drifting snow—each requires a different term. If you live
in Phoenix, however, one word for snow is enough. Similarly, the Reformed
tradition, which teaches predestination, needs only one word for sin.
Sin is any deviation from perfect compliance to God’s
holy law. Sin is sin whether accidental or deliberate.
The Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, however, takes human freedom seriously.
Thus it needs several words for sin. There is a difference between
missing God’s
mark by mistake and missing the mark by a willful transgression of
a known law. Our nonwillful transgressions need the atoning blood
of Christ—make no mistake about that. But the acts that separate
us from God are those sins we choose. Read John Wesley’s
sermon “First
Fruits of the Spirit”
(The Works of John Wesley, Beacon Hill Press, 1986, 5:87-97).
Wesley explains why sins of ignorance, infirmity, involuntary failings,
and certain kinds of sins of surprise do not bring condemnation.—wdt
|
|
|
