Holiness is Wholeness: According to Its Difference from Perfection

The benefits are always the place to begin before introducing the technical features of anything, I was taught a few years ago. One of the great benefits of holiness is wholeness is its effect on our fundamental standards. One of the problems for the church has been the argument over impossible standards. I think we have to introduce possible standards, but effective ones that still maintain a standard rather than the effect of anything goes.

The driving force in the argument between different Christian groups has been to solve the dilemma of what is possible now versus the impossible later. Of course, all is impossible for us in our fallen nature so that forgiveness, as a whole, and mercy, grace, compassion and longsuffering, as parts, must be essential to any discussion. But for now, because forgiveness is assumed by me, I want to work on the standards that God originally intended, which bring us to our knees, and what standards we can live by, after we are Christians.




Going from perfection to imperfection is one example of standard change that now allows the standard to be anything goes. I think we need to change things from a willy nilly standard of imperfection to something that has backbone. Imperfection while in a sense admirable has no stopping point as far as how far that imperfection can go. We usually stop at the more recognized sins, but that is not what Scripture does.




The major standards that need correction are being holy, being full, being perfect, being complete and being entire. These standards as they currently are understood have become rocks of stumbling, rather than stepping stones for Christians.


I love John Wesley. John Wesley was a great grammarian and realized that sanctification or being holy, perfection, completion and entire were all present tense. He was so great, he even wrote a grammar at one point. So for him perfect love was a present time standard. So was entire sanctification.


I love John Wesley still. Yet John Wesley was a poor lexiographer, at least on occasion. He never wrote a dictionary and nothing he wrote on definitions, to my knowledge, reflects the skill he had at grammar. So other Christians have objected for good reason to his ideas, but they usually just changed the standard by lowering it, rather than defining the standard correctly or biblically. So many just changed his perfection standard to imperfection, which has led to a host of other problems, even while avoiding the difficulties Wesley faced.




It is time to keep standards that are present tense and possible rather than future tense and impossible, and the best way to do this is to define Biblical words accurately rather than lowering standards. It is elementary, my dear friends. We have defined fundamental and nearly fundamental standards incorrectly.


Wesley did not define holy clearly, when he used the word sanctification. This Latin term carried over into English obscures the clear meaning connected with wholeness. I believe it is God's original intention for us to be whole, and I believe it is His present tense possible standard following repentance and forgiveness, for us to be whole.



The idea otherwise expressed in sanctification of being without sin exclusively or being pure reflects more of an impossible standard. Purity is a wonderful process that is ongoing in our lives, as shown in some of the suffering we experience that purifies us. I don't see our purity as a finished process in this life.




This raises another argument that I cannot handle in this space about our flesh that still battles with our inner self that is renewed. I assume this battle is real, yet Christians can win this warring in Christ. I assume this will be the case with all the standards, so this is all I will say on this topic, only due to the fact that I want to stick to my primary topic and not get too lengthy.




Wesley did not define perfection correctly. I think this is his biggest mistake in understanding the Bible. Having said this, he corrected much of his misunderstanding with understanding. I say this because I agree so much with his grammarian rule that perfection is present tense. "Be perfect" is present tense. The question is still what perfect is.

Richard Hooker, I think correctly defined the word in terms of achieving a goal that is set. This would be perfection. It is simply reached the spot that was set for us. It is the child who reaches adulthood in Greek thought. I think this is what Wesley missed when he combined together perfection, entire sanctification and perfect love.

Biblical perfection is relational. Entirety is an amount. Sanctification is a whole. Love is an action. Wesley just needed to distinguish these meanings as well as he distinguished the time of present versus the time of future. May God make you whole this day.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon