Talk:Holiness movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

=Wesleyan-Holiness Movement

Should Wesleyan-Holiness Movement redirect here? Ltwin (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Cleanup in accordance with WOP: Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter. Unofficial movements and ideologies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. For example, Islam, Pentecostalism, and Catholic are capitalized, while evangelicalism and fundamentalist are not. (holiness movement is not a proper name) R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Charismatic?

I'm not sure the W-H is Charismatic, I'm removing the sub-project tag.Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are many Pentecostal churches which were first and continue to be Holiness, such as the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. Ltwin (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Having been a Wesleyan for more than 50 years, I'm fairly sure mainstream Wesleyan's do not consider themselves charismatic. I cannot speak to other churches that use John Wesley's name but are not part of The Wesleyan Church. JimScott (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JimScott. I am sure that many holiness churches would ardently deny any connection with the charismatic and Pentecostal movements; however, many of the classical Pentecostal denominations have their roots in and still consider themselves part of the holiness movement. The only difference is that Pentecostal's believe that tongues are the evidence of the "second blessing". The banner does not imply that the entire movement is charismatic, only that the subject areas overlap.Ltwin (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

There are SERIOUS neutrality issues with this article. It's not written as an informational piece, but occasionally exhorts as a sermon. Examples include:

"We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins, even ours." This issue isn't as strong, because the previous line sets it up as something within the holiness movement.

"A christian who thinks that salvation without sanctification is morbidly decieved." Well, one, this isn't even a sentence. Two, it's not making a statement of what the movement believes but is written as a statement of fact.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works in us to will and to act according to his good purpose." Hey look, the article now tells you how to address your faith and your life! It's moved from educational to instructional, and has thrown out neutrality entirely.

There are other examples. Unfortunately, I do not know the Holiness Movement well enough to go over this article carefully, but I shall research and return. Until then--seriously, guys, this is an encyclopedia. An informational resource. Go preach on your own time, and while we're at it, let's include some controverseys of the Holiness Movement in the article, because I've no doubt there are some. You know, for balance.

Grenye

Thanks for pointing out those problems. I have removed those sentences. It is self-evident, in my opinion, that those statements did not belong in the article (at least not in the way that they were written). Logophile (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This phraseology is common within the holiness movement and, with simplification of the more dramatically-worded text, could easily be described as a tenet of same; which is encyclopedic don't you think? For example, the phrase "We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins." is a basic tenet of the holiness movement. With all due respect, as such, merely deleting said text out of hand only exposes the POV and/or lack of knowledge on the topic by the parties complaining and/or deleting. Similar to someone not understanding the basic workings of nuclear physics and deleting part of that article because it doesn't make sense to them or they disagree. Just because religion presents as more subjective than math (ie, clearly subjective) doesn't mean we should be treating the article any differently. JimScott (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that people don't want this information in the article. The issue is that the information as it was written was stating as fact instead of stating as "the holiness movement believes, teaches, etc." Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia is jeapordized and compromised when it comes across as supporting a view (religious or otherwise). Now you say that instead of deleting the passages they should have been reedited. That is a valid point; however, it is the responsibility of the editor who put that text in the article to conform them to Wikipedia's neutrality rules. It is not the responsiblity of any other editor who has an obligation to remove text which is pov and unverified. Ltwin (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pentecostal Purge

What is going on? It seems that someone is on a campaign to remove anything that even hints of Pentecostalism from this page. I realize their are differences between Pentcostalism and the holiness movement. However, removing a source because it just so happens to be about the Pentecostal Holiness tradition and as if within its pages there could not be a reference to a belief of purely holiness Christianity is rediculous. Just because the subject is on the Pentecostal branch of the holiness movement does not mean it can't include insights into the wider movement. Please people think about your edits before you make them. Ltwin (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I kindly suggest that you study the difference between the traditional holiness movement and the Pentecostal movement. I am correcting additions that should ave not been includied in the article. While some in the Pentecostal movement might have originally come out of the Wesleyan holiness movement, now they are entirely separate movements. The groups in this article do not believe in speaking in tongues-the phrase "speaking in togues is of the devil" is one position. Tongues is merely babbling and not a real language is another. Traditional holiness groups do not permit speaking in tongues in their services. I am sure that your interest is in the Pentecostal movement. Please keep the 2 movements separate, and stop trying to merge them. รัก-ไทย 05:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not trying to merge anything. Wikipedia does not choose sides in religious conflicts. Just because groups in the holiness movement who did not accept the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues consider Pentecostals as non-holiness does not change the fact that many Pentecostal groups continue to claim that they are holiness. Wikipedia does not determine who is what. It only reports the facts. What are the facts:

• Traditional holiness groups do not accept Pentecostals
• Some Pentecostal groups still claim to be part of the holiness movement

Wikipedia does not choose sides. The article previously was fine. It noted that traditional holiness Christians do not accept Pentecostals while also noting that there are Pentecostal groups who define themselves as holiness. I do not see the problem. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.

And once again that source is not only about Pentecostalism. It is a scholarly work which looks into the history of Pentecostalism which has to talk about the holiness movement. The source is citing a holiness belief, not a Pentecostal belief as such it is a legitimate source to verify what is written in the article. Just because the word Pentecostal is in the title does not mean that the whole book is talking about Pentecostalism. It can also mention the holiness movement, which is what is being referenced here. Surely you can see that? Ltwin (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Laos, India and Vietnam

Churches of these countries have been removed. They are Holiness Churches according to World Christian Enyclopedia. Sarcelles (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have they been removed again?

Sarcelles (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Holiness "Movement"

Some holiness churches and believers object to being referred to as a "movement", with the connotation of being radical and ephemeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.137.100.22 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok so any suggestions as to what we should call it???? I guess not. Ltwin (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Tend to oppose" whom?

The text stupidly claims:

Holiness groups tend to oppose antinomianism

Where are those antinomians? Are there Christian denominations, that adher to a antinomian position? (No) One could as well say:

Holiness groups hate evil

which is not informative, since Holiness groups are part of a religion, and as such religions fight evil. A similar textual stupidity would be:

The Middle-left Presbylutherian Calvinists rever Jesus as Son of God

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to discuss more information

I'd like to see this article discuss the history and scope of the movement, whether it's limited to certain denominations, etc. etc. For instance, I think it began in the 19th century, and arguably continues to this day, although it's a bit smaller now than it used to be. But this is very vague; I hope someone can be more specific about this. Wesley 17:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More current history

A suggestion for the end of the current history section would be to add: "In 2006 the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium, which gathers representatives from historic holiness denominations, published "The Holiness Manifesto" for the ongoing promotion of the message of holiness.

I am a student researcher for Dr. Thorsen, so do not want to add it to the document myself. Klfkyle (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Consider it added. 74.192.165.180 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References

General re-write

A few parties have been working on a general re-organization and re-writing of this page, keeping essential information expressed in earlier versions. The reason being is that this page had several errors and was flagged. Also, the bulk of edits seem to have been made prior to five years ago. Feedback is most certainly welcome -- especially from experts in the subject of Holiness movement history. In particular, we need help policing the links to denominations and colleges, which can sometimes disappear/merge with other pages without notice. 74.192.165.180 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Deeper Christian Life Ministry

Please have a look at Deeper Christian Life Ministry, I think it applies to this group. The emphasis attributed to William Kumuyi for decades has been holiness based. They practice the highest form of holiness in Nigeria, and probably in Africa and the world. I mean which Christian denomination stop members from wearing earrings(female and male), trousers (female only), don't watch television, don't get involved in politics, etc all on religious grounds, and still maintain millions of members across Africa and beyond? Please look into them and add appropriately. [Unsigned comment by User:Darreg, Revision as of 04:19, 5 April 2017]

Thank you, but it seems Deeper Life is Pentecostal-Holiness. See the section in this article about Pentecostalism.72.182.126.89 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holiness movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707133623/http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1690 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1690

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Template Adjustment

Hello! This article falls within the scope of Holiness Movement work group. As of now, the template parameter being used to render this project is Holiness Movement work group is |church-of-the-nazarene=. I wish to change this to |holiness-movement= as the holiness movement is inclusive of many other Churches, such as the Free Methodist Church and Wesleyan Church, for example. You are invited to participate in the discussion here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede

I changed the lede to read—The Holiness movement is a group of Christian churches with beliefs and practices that emerged chiefly within 19th-century Methodism, and to a lesser extent other traditions such as Quakerism and Anabaptism.[1] An IP editor reverted back to the current phrasing—The Holiness movement involves a set of Christian beliefs and practices that emerged chiefly within 19th-century Methodism, and to a lesser extent other traditions such as Quakerism and Anabaptism.[1]. The edit summary read, "It's bigger than churches or denominations." A movement by definition is made up of people and organizations. How is it bigger than churches and denominations? Are there holiness countries? The phrase "involves a set of Christian beliefs and practices" is odd to describe a movement that is comprised of churches. It's not like there are individuals out there just "practicing" holiness. These are organized churches. Ltwin (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ltwin: Thanks for the explanation. There are also parachurch organizations that are Holiness. There are individuals who are in the Holiness movement who are not members of Holiness churches or denominations, myself included. There are Holiness authors who are in non-Holiness churches. There are businesses that support Holiness doctrine. You get the idea. These do not fall under the category of "a group of Christian churches." The movement is not comprised of only churches. 74.192.147.169 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

P in TULIP

It's my impression that the Holiness movement drops the P in TULIP by focusing on Bible verses having to do with "reprobate" behavior. Is there a secular / academic reference to this difference with other Pentecostals? Charles Juvon (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lede

A range of anonymous editors are repeatedly attempting to change the lede to suggest that "living free of sin" is the primary distinctive belief of the Holiness Movement. This isn't true. This belief, perfectionism, has been common since the very beginning of Christian history (and in several cases was defined as a heresy: c.f. Pelagianism in 418). In the 19th century context relevant to the Holiness Movement, perfectionism was a teaching of several sects, most significantly Methodism.

The key difference between the Holiness Movement and these other groups was that while those groups thought that perfection was something to be achieved gradually, perhaps over a lifetime, and only by great effort, Holiness leaders taught that it could be attained in an instant through a second work of grace. They absolutely believed that this led to sinless living, but that part wasn't what made them unusual or distinctive - the instantaneous accomplishment of perfection was.

So I think it's very important that we don't say, "The Holiness Movement believe in living free of sin, oh and by the way they have this 'second work of grace' thing too." The most distinctive part - the instantaneous transforming interaction - has to come first and should not be de-emphasized.

I tried to achieve a compromise wording which includes both ideas in the opening sentence.

(The question of whether the Holiness Movement churches still actively teach any of this in the 21st century is also interesting...)

Thparkth (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Holiness Movement follows their understanding of John Wesley in his statement "“In conformity, therefore, both to the doctrine of St. John, and the whole tenor of the New Testament, we fix this conclusion: A Christian is so far perfect, as not to commit sin. This is the glorious privilege of every Christian; yea, though he be but a babe in Christ.” J. A. Wood, one of the founders of the Movement states "“Can a state of justification be retained while sin is committed? It can not." It is a misapprehension of their theology that they believe this is only possible after the "second work of grace." Another of the early "founders" of the movement, D. S. Warner states "Holiness writers and teachers, as far as my knowledge extends, uniformly hold up a sinless life, as the true test and Bible standard of regeneration." At the General Holiness Assembly of 1901, one of the foundational conferences of the Holiness Movement, A. H. Hills stated "no man can be a Christian and a sinner at the same time." His statement was met by "amen." Historian Charles Ewing Jones concludes that the Holiness Movement believed that sin was conscious disobedience to a known law of God, [and] holiness believers were convinced that the true Christian, having repented of every known act of sin, did not and could not willfully sin again and remain a Christian.” This seems to be the a clear and essential part of Holiness Theology. For further information see: Richard S. Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin; Harry Jessop, We The Holiness People: The Things We Believe and Teach; Benjamin Pettit, The Great Privilege of All Believers; Caleb Black, What about Sin; Howard Sweeten, Must we Sin; W. T. Purkiser, Conflicting Concepts of Holiness; J. A. Wood, Perfect Love; and Leslie D. Wilcox, Be Ye Holy. 64.67.39.239 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor,

I think we are in complete agreement on the question of whether the Holiness Movement teaches perfectionism. The only point of contention, as far as I'm aware, is whether that should be the very first thing we say about them in a definition.

I am arguing that we should say "The Holiness Movement churches believe in a second work of grace, which leads to a sinless life" instead of "The Holiness Movement churches believe in a sinless life, and in a second work of grace." The only difference is the order.

There are two reasons I think we should mention the second work of grace first;

1. As I mentioned above, this is the distinctive teaching of the Holiness Movement. Perfectionism is not a distinctive teaching of the Holiness Movement.

2. Chronologically, per Holiness teaching, second work of grace comes first, followed by sinless living. It makes sense to reflect that.

What do you think?

(PS would you consider registering an account? There are so many benefits, not least of which is your own privacy)

Thparkth (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the feedback. I think that you have actually hit upon the crux of the issue... As per J. A. Wood, one of their founders, it is not entire sanctification which enables on to avoid sin, but rather salvation. "It should be ever borne in mind that believers can not commit sin without forfeiting justification.” "The lowest type of a Christian sinneth not, and is not condemned. The minimum of salvation is salvation from sinning.” I believe this is due to their interpretation of passages like 1 John 3:6 "Whoever remains in him doesn’t sin." I am also curious, you alluded to the fact that this is not distinctive to the Holiness Movement? Which other contemporary groups would interpret 1 John in this way? Thanks again. 64.67.39.239 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a danger that we wander into a conversation here regarding what we personally think or believe about not only the Holiness Movement per se but also about its doctrines and beliefs. To your specific point regarding 1 John 3:6, I want to be clear that I am not arguing that your suggestion is right or wrong; but I do not believe that sources support any statement that the Holiness interpretation of 1 John 3:6 is distinctive. What they do support, is that "the second work of grace leading to perfection" is distinctive. Thparkth (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In the book "What about Sin: An Appraisal of the Nature of Sin in the American Holiness Tradition" which surveys this question, the author states "the definition and consequences of sin are a key theological distinctive of the Holiness Movement as it underlies their entire theological system." I believe that would be a source that argues their (holiness movement) view is distinctive and foundational. 64.67.39.239 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

C. J. Fowler was another of the "founders" of the Holiness Movement, and he states in his work entitled "What We Teach and What We Do Not Teach" that:

"We teach that regeneration does not allow the committing of conscious sin. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.” 1 John 3:9. “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” 1 John 3:8" Toatalfreedom (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we can talk about this forever (and I at least would probably enjoy that) but the article needs to reflect what reliable secondary sources say - not our original research based on interpreting the writings of the founders. I'm confident that the sources back up the claim that the second work of grace is the distinctive teaching, and that perfectionism, while a vital Holiness doctrine, isn't in itself distinctive. Thparkth (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You asked for a secondary source...Here is one. In the book "Built on the Sand" the author in his section regarding the Holiness Movement explains "Holiness People are theologically distinctive in two basic theological beliefs which must be strongly emphasized. These are:

All people who are Christians live without sinning as sin is defined by the Wesleyan-Arminian movement.

God has a second definite work of grace in which the heart is purified from inbred sin, and the person at the same time is filled with the Holy Spirit."

Stephen Gibson in his book Held by Conviction, where he outlines the beliefs of the Holiness movement also argues that "victory over willful sin" is one of the two primary "distinctives." The other of course being their doctrine of christian perfection.

The question isn't whether or not the second work of grace is distinctive. I think we agree on that. However, for scholars do seem to say that their view of sin is as well. Toatalfreedom (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Toatalfreedom, not all churches aligned with the holiness movement can be said to adhere to Wesleyan/Methodist theology (though the majority might be). The holiness movement includes Methodists, but also, certain Quakers, Anabaptists, Baptists, and Restorationists. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

Hi, a Professor here at one of the Oldest Holiness Bible Colleges whose expertise is in historical theology. Most of the statements of faith in the sections on their distinctive beliefs, or in the training textbooks identified conversion with no longer committing any sin. Thus not committing sin is a foundational distinctive. I believe Anupam where you may be confused is that they also hold a second distinctive that the sin nature is cleansed in Entire Sanctification. The best secondary literature on the subject is entitled: What about Sin, An appraisal of the nature of sin in the American Holiness Movement. It is a comprehensive study on this exact subject. Charles Ewin Jones in his Perfectionist persuausion likewise says the same thing. 147.0.50.210 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Richard S Taylor in an essay entitled TheWord and The Doctrine an official publication of the Christian Holiness Association gives an explanation on how at conversion Christians are delivered from committing actual sin (genrally defined as a willful transgression of a known law) but in a second work of grace are cleansed from the sin nature. 147.0.50.210 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have never disputed that the holiness movement affirms what you stated about humans being delivered from sin at their conversion. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 02:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I must have misunderstood you. I was simply saying that one of the core Theological distinctives of the American Holiness Movement is that sin was defined as a Willful transgression against a known law of God, and that if committed it separated one from God; thus from conversions Christians no longer committed sin, (as long as they remain Chrisitans) thought they can choose to sin and no longer be a Christian. This is according to the Interchruch Holiness Convention Statement of Beliefs, The Nazarene Church Statement of Beliefs, the Official Textbook of the National Holiness Assocition, The Chrisitan Holiness Association statement of Beliefs, The Wesleyan-Holiness Church Statement of beliefs. Thus the secondary literature (i.e. Jones, Black etc...) explains that one of the theological distinctives of the Classic American Holiness Movement was their belief that all Christians live a life above committed sin from the moment of conversion(as long as they remain Chrisitans) but in a second work of grace are freed from the sin nature and enter into a state known as Christian Perfection of Entire Sanctification. Its nice chatting with Anupam, Hope all is well, Kindest Regards

Nick 147.0.50.210 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi 147.0.50.210, I note that "What About Sin" appears to be a self-published e-book, and as such doesn't count as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. I also can't find it in the holdings of my theological college library or in any online academic database. The other sources you mention would be fine to reference in my opinion. Also as an expert editing in your area of expertise, it would be worth reading WP:EXPERT if you haven't already; sticking to what the sources say and avoiding synthesis is genuinely difficult and gets more difficult the more personal knowledge you have! Thparkth (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Good Afternoon,

As a Professor who teaches on this exact subject at one of the oldest Holiness Bible Colleges, I would suggest sticking with the previous edit. It is indisputable that one of the two distictives of the American Holiness Movement is that all Christians live a life above sin. The primary sources are indisputable, as one person above gave. The secondary literature also concurs. There is no disputing sources mentioned (By the way, What about Sin, is a Standard Textbook at Multiple Bible Colleges, is endorsed on the cover by two individuals who earned their Ph.d's on the History of the American Holiness Movement. It is a hardback textbook, and it is in the college library where I teach. Regardless of that, the sources are indisputable, if we are to have an academic page, we need to follow the standard consensus interpretation. For the Standard consesus interpretation see the following: Wiley Chrisitan Theology chapter on Hamartiology, Exploring our Christian Faith Chapter Deliverance from sin, God Man & Salvation, Chapter on Sin, H.E. Brockett Scriptural Freedom from Sin. Must we Sin by Howard Sweeten etc... John Wesley said it this way in his Plain Account of Christian perfection "even babes in Christ, are so far perfect as not to commit sin" & "A Christian is so far perfect, as to not commit sin". 147.0.50.210 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Please consider reading WP:RS and WP:EXPERT. For "What About Sin"... we are talking about this book, right? If so, I see that it is available in physical format but it is also very-obviously self published; the publisher is listed as "Independently Published" and it is clearly not professionally edited. It is absolutely not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, no matter who wrote an endorsement for the cover.

The book does provide the following quotation though:

What exactly is the Holiness Movement? According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the Holiness Movement is "a predominantly American religious movement which centres on the belief that entire sanctification takes place instantaneously in a crisis experience."

If you wish the lede to say, effectively, that the primary distinguishing teaching of the Holiness Movement was perfectionism, then you must be able to point to specific sentences on specific pages of those sources that state that position plainly, without the need for non-trivial interpretation or synthesis. You must also overcome the challenge of all the existing sources we have, including apparently from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, saying that the second blessing is the defining belief.

I do not understand the relevance of the quotations from Wesley, who was not talking about the Holiness Movement due to his death fifty years before it started.

Thparkth (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It see from reading this discussion that several primary and secondary sources have been offered. What if we went with this secondary source? "Holiness People are theologically distinctive in two basic theological beliefs which must be strongly emphasized. These are:

All people who are Christians live without sinning as sin is defined by the Wesleyan-Arminian movement.

God has a second definite work of grace in which the heart is purified from inbred sin, and the person at the same time is filled with the Holy Spirit." (From Built on the Sand) 64.67.39.239 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)