So I really enjoyed the first part of this message and found the latter half to two thirds to drag along in an almost irredeemable way. Understanding that Wesley is here responding to his critics, I am still much less interested in the argument and debate over a word-by-word exegetical disagreement. Because many of Wesley's arguments for Christian Perfection are, at least in this sermon, arguments from absence ("If you read it carefully, the apostle never said it was impossible!") rather than positive arguments, I am not surprised that people predisposed against him were not convinced. That all said, his section clarifying what he doesn't mean by christian perfection was quite illuminating. To hear specifically from Wesley that his view of perfect sanctification does not include, for example, everything taken to mean a kind of omniscience, was a clear boundary that was helpful for my understanding of what he was teaching. Believers do not know everything, they do not have perfect judgement and cannot see in to the hearts of others. He describes the kind of thing I might describe as an honest mistake, thinking we had enough chairs for six people when we only had enough for five, choosing to trust someone who eventually shows themselves to be a con man. Wesley's perfected christian makes mistakes born of ignorance or a lack of perfect knowledge all the time. Not knowing everything is part of human finitude. Allowing myself to paraphrase his SEVERAL paragraphs on the matter, Wesley's perfected christian DOES abstain from all willful sin and all "evil tempers", or maybe personality defects? I'm thinking here of things like a disposition towards rage, or sexual promiscuity. He specifically does NOT think things that we might call intellectual disabilities are evidence of the lack of christian perfection. He describes several kinds of mental and even emotional handicaps in the vernacular of his time ("infirmities") and does not think these are the kinds of things the Spirit removes from us in the process of sanctification. I agree, but it's nice to hear him say it. I think the most interesting thing to me about this distinctive doctrine is the knock-on effects it has in other areas of theology. To say what a perfected human is, and what limits that perfected human has anyways, could inform directly on our Christology, what we mean when we read and teach that Christ "emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave." Did Christ empty himself of perfect knowledge of all things, while retaining the perfected heart and sanctified life that made his ministry possible? Learned men and women teach so, and this word from Wesley could be used in support of that. The other thing I think is lacking here is a really clear hamartiology, or a description of what exactly sin is. Wesley is clearly saying there is a difference between an honest mistake and sinful actions. If he spent more time on that, it would help me really understand what HE means when he asserts "The perfected christian has no sin", rather than just plugging in my definition of sin. I think a lot of people who don't read him closely might have problems when they import a grade-school definition of sin as "imperfection of any sort" into this doctrine, for example.