Christian Perfection a divisive doctrine within Arminianism?

If you look within Arminianism you will see two schools one is Classical Arminianism that mainly follows Jacob Arminius. The other school is Wesleyan Arminianism that mainly follows John Wesley. Now both sides love Arminius and Wesley but each side favors one over the other.  But within these two schools there are differences like the Atonement, Christian perfection and Imputation. But for this blog post I'm gonna be focusing on Christian perfection or entire sanctification since many see this as the main dividing line. But I will argue that christian perfection is not the main dividing issue. But first we need to define this doctrine since this great doctrine has been corrupted and goes against what John Wesley originally intended.

Definition of Christian Perfection

Here is how I would define christian perfection: loving God with all our heart and able not to commit sin. Now the first part every Christian will affirm that we should love God with all our heart. But saying that a Christian is able to not commit sin most people reject so I will pull from Wesley as to what he means. Wesley would define a sin as a voluntarily transgressing of a known Law so in his definition there is rooms for mistakes.

He defines what he doesn't mean by perfection "We Secondly believe, that there is no such perfection in this life, as implies an entire deliverance, either from ignorance, or mistake, in things not essential to salvation, or from manifold temptations, or from numberless infirmities, wherewith the corruptible body more or less presses down the soul." So there is room for mistakes since we don't have omniscience and the Christian still needs to attend "all the ordinances of God."  Wesley uses Ezekiel 36:25 as a good way to explain perfection "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."

   Now this blog post is not a full defense of christian perfection since I'm just defining it but I would recommend A Plain Account of Christian Perfection if you want a more thorough defense and what Wesley actually taught. So in short christian perfection is being fully cleansed from sin by God's grace and loving God with all of our heart. Now classical Arminians will deny this doctrine since they want to be closer to Arminius but I will show that Arminius or the 1621 Remonstrant confession was not fully against christian perfection.

Arminius on Christian Perfection

Now the main question is does Arminius in any of his writings support or condemned the doctrine of christian perfection? If we look at his declaration of sentiments he talks about perfection of believers and he doesn't deny it outright. Arminius says "To this I reply, though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that "they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it." But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided." So Arminius never denied a doctrine of christian perfection and even said it's not pelagian. 

  We can look at disputation 49 were Arminius talks about sanctification he says "This sanctification is not completed in a single moment; but sin, from whose dominion we have been delivered through the cross and the death of Christ, is weakened more and more by daily losses, and the inner man is day by day renewed more and more, while we carry about with us in our bodies, the death of Christ, and the outward man is perishing." This may not say a believer can have perfection but at the same time it doesn't deny the possibility of Christian perfection. 

  Then we look at the 1621 confession when it talks about sanctification it doesn't deny it's possible but still like Arminius it doesn't affirm christian perfection. It says on the 18th chapter "in part through stimulation to a sharper and deeper abiding hatred of sin and zeal for holiness and true godliness and their establishment in his zeal, so that the will of the truly believing man is rendered more prone and inclined, indeed more cheerful to daily virtue, and these obstacles or hindrances which otherwise he usually meets with in his zeal for piety and virtue, He either does not permit them to be thrown before him or He diligently removes the object and courageously and cheerfully overcomes them.

Conclusion

In all christian perfection can't be the major dividing line between Wesleyan and classical Arminians. Since Arminius or the Remonstrant confession does not deny the possibility of Christian perfection. Now I'm not saying classical Arminians need to accept christian perfection. I would like them to accept this doctrine but all I'm saying is that this issue isn't as divisive as some proponents of classical Arminianism will say it is. So I hope that I showed that that these two schools within the Arminian tradition are closer than most people think on this issue.