Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Slippery rock no. 2: Perfection Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 07:10:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 32 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl diabetic Henning) writes: >One of the reasons, perhaps, that "we don't understand perfection" is, >that -- as a disembodied abstraction -- it is absurd. Perfection certainly is a word that can lead to confusion. I was confused by Wesley's use of it. (How can I ever hope to be perfect!?) However, Wesley doesn't use the word the way we commonly do. I.E. perfection is a state that is reached. Wesley (as I understand it) speaks of perfection as something that is done. The act of projecting something is projection. It is on ongoing process. Similarly, the process we undergo when God is working to perfect us is perfection. I am not yet perfect, (boy! just look at some of the stupid things I say, and the typos I make), and yet I am experiencing perfection. (God is continually working to make me perfect.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton [The background of this comment may not be clear to everyone. John Wesley (founder of Methodism -- Tom is a Methodist) was well known for holding the Christians could actually become perfect in this life. His use of the word perfect seems to have been somewhat restricted. That is, he didn't claim that such a person would never make an error. Rather he seems to have meant that -- through the grace of God -- their relationship with God was perfected. Wesley did not claim to be prefect himself, and in fact I've never known a Methodist make such a claim. --clh]