Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Wesley attacks the idea that “Christ’s righteousness is imputed… therefore we need none of our own,” calling it Satan’s masterpiece; which parts of his description sound uncomfortably close to things you’ve heard in Protestant circles, and where do you think the line is between honoring Christ’s righteousness and using it as “a cover for the unrighteousness of man”?

Another way to ask: Wesley says it’s dangerous to think Christ’s righteousness means we don’t need any righteousness in our own lives. What parts of that sound like things you’ve heard in Protestant churches, and where is the line between trusting Christ and using it as an excuse to keep sinning?

Direct Answer Wesley’s critique targets any teaching that uses Christ’s righteousness to remove the need for real holiness, turning grace into permission to remain unchanged. The line, in the transcript, is crossed when “imputed righteousness” is treated as a cover while a person continues proudly and knowingly in sin.

Support from Transcript:

Wesley describes Protestants saying, “His righteousness is imputed to us. Therefore, we need none of our own… there needs to be none in us.”
He says some even claim to “desire or seek any holiness, is to renounce Christ,” labeling holiness “legalism.”
He calls this “Satan’s masterpiece”: people believing they are “holy without a grain of holiness in them… in Christ, however unholy in themselves.”
He highlights unchanged life: “as proud, as vain, as covetous, and as lustful as ever,” yet thinking they are “complete in Him.”
He warns against continuing in unrighteousness: “Will you make the righteousness of Christ a cover for the unrighteousness of man?”

Discussion Follow-ups In your own circles, where have you heard language that sounds like “nothing is in man,” and how could it be rephrased to avoid excusing sin?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10