Wesleyan Methodists (and the related body known as God's Missionary Church) teach:
"That second, definite, instantaneous work of grace, subsequent to regeneration, wrought in the heart of the justified person through faith, by the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, whereby the heart of the believer is cleansed from the original sin, and purified by the filling of the Holy Ghost."
In the book of Acts, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by signs and wonders such as tongues. In redemptive-historical terms this signs and wonders miraculous phenomena was connected to the revelation of the New Covenant order - and the arrival of the last days. While there isn't a 'proof text' to demonstrate its obsolescence, the thrust of the teachings in the epistles point to this.
Rome maintains the charismata still function through the magisterium and in the 'miracles' of the saints - and certainly in its long history of visions and the like. Protestantism (generally speaking) rejected this posture and yet the issues were never quite resolved. There's a long history of unofficial prophets within both Reformed and Lutheran spheres - as well as among the Anabaptists. The Anglican Church did not prove to be fertile ground for prophecies and extraordinary examples of 'Spirit'-inspired charismata, miracles, and the like. But the latent doctrine remained and in keeping with the Pietist dilemma regarding regeneration within the context of nominal and worldly state Christianity, a modification would emerge in Wesley's movement. A theology developed regarding a post-conversion second work of grace that would demonstrate or open the door to a kind of a higher Christian life - like (but unlike) the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts. And just what was that second work of grace, and what would the higher Christian life look like? That answer would continue to change over time.
It is therefore no wonder that this Wesleyan doctrine opened the door to the contemporary Charismatic movement which in order to generate the kind of phenomena they deem necessary has resorted to all manner of counterfeit and contrived signs and wonders including their unbiblical 'tongues' practice which is not the languages of Acts, but mere gibberish - as well as their many stunts and practices related to healing and other 'spirit-led' proclamations.
We can summarily dismiss the claims of this sensationalist and heterodox movement, and yet this second work of grace doctrine has also wreaked considerable havoc in the larger Evangelical sphere by sharply separating sanctification from not just justification (which sometimes is given undo prominence) but the larger holistic approach to salvation found in the New Testament. In practice, sanctification becomes something almost optional - and over the course of the 20th century, many Evangelicals would make it so. A desirable thing to be sure but unnecessary for salvation. The erroneous Carnal Christian doctrine is a more articulated expression of this theology. It would eventually lead to many within the movement relegating repentance to being something optional or outside the basic message and gospel imperative of faith - as if faith and repentance can be separated. Some even suggest that a demand for repentance is akin to works salvation. Unfortunately this debate is often sidetracked over whether repentance is a gift and evidence of salvation and therefore (while necessary) must be separated from the core imperative to believe. Thankfully the Scriptures don't speak this way - getting lost in a labyrinth of nuance and hair-splitting debates over logical priority based on principle or experience.
The worst turn of all (I think) was when significant numbers of Evangelicals embraced this second work of grace doctrine alongside the erroneous view of Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. This doctrine differs from the old Calvinist formulation Perseverance of the Saints though many (even many of today's Confessional Calvinists) do not seem to understand this. The end result was a feeble understanding of the gospel combined with a presumptuous posture regarding one's Christian standing and assurance. The end result has been nothing less than destructive as literally millions of people have been deceived into thinking they are Christians when in fact their lives exhibit no fruits of regeneration and they should be granted no basis of assurance.
This Wesleyan contribution to Evangelicalism is often missed but it has generated untold damage to the Christian Church.
Additionally (following Wesley) the following statement is made regarding sin:
Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore, every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly. To strain the matter farther is only to make way for Calvinism. There may be ten thousand wandering thoughts, and forgetful intervals, without any breach of love, though not without transgressing the Adamic law. But Calvinists would fain confound these together. Let love fill your heart, and it is enough!
The Wesleyan doctrine of sin falls far short of Scripture and its depiction of man's depravity. The wrestlings of Paul in Romans 7 and Galatians 5 regarding the flesh (or sinful nature) are alien to this theology as is the bleak anthropological picture painted in the opening salvo of that famed epistle. The Wesleyan view fails to understand the pervasiveness of sin, and the sin nature that clouds, corrupts, and condemns all to death. Calvinism is guilty of its own distortions and epistemological commitments but this Wesleyan doctrinal statement exposes a watered down and dangerously weak understanding of sin and its corruption. This is a great irony and yet also revealing given the Wesleyan penchant for (and association with) holiness. With such a low view of sin, it is no wonder that their concept of holiness is also revealed to be illusory - even a case of glorying in delusion, an exhibition in hubris reminiscent of the Pharisees. It's easy to be holy when you've re-defined what it is and watered down the corruption and condemnation of sin.
While the bulk of the Evangelical movement has not embraced Wesleyan Perfectionism (so-called), it has nevertheless accepted this diluted understanding of sin and its grip - one that ignores the teaching of the apostles and indeed that of Christ Himself within the Sermon on the Mount. And this view of sin is necessary for the doctrine. For this allows the 'Perfect' Wesleyan to think he has gone not only weeks and months without sinning but in some cases years and decades. In reality we are sinning every moment of the day - even our dreams reveal our depravity. In Christ, the dominance of sin is broken and being broken. Our wills are made alive and we struggle, testifying to the work of the Spirit. One has to wonder about those who do not sense this struggle - is there life in them? Only by redefining sin are they able to convince themselves that they are righteous - and this even while they make sanctification into an optional second work of grace, separate from the outworking of regeneration.
As an unregenerate young man on the fringes of the Evangelical movement, I eventually grew frustrated and turned away from the faith - a faith which I later discovered to be other than that which is found in Scripture. After being misled by Decisionalist theology and Altar Call methods, I finally (after several years) in my brokenness began to read the Scriptures and discovered that the faith and repentance that had been presented to me - indeed the whole conception of the Christian life was a fraud. I had been right to be frustrated for I was told at best half-truths and fed with a watered down gospel. The shallow salvation and trivial kind of renewal that resulted was unconvincing and I decided the whole thing must be (at least on some level) a scam. In my blindness and despair I was convinced everyone was faking it. They were all hypocrites as I was and so I saw little point in pretending any longer. Only later when at the very nadir of my wretched life did I turn again to Scripture and found redemption, reconciliation, and hope - but at the expense of the Evangelical message that had so long deceived me.
The meat of Scripture was hard to chew to be sure but its message of depravity was something I understood all too well and the struggle of faith and sanctification (which I had long viewed as futility) at last made sense to me. It was hard but real and exposed to me in a most glaring fashion the superficiality of the Evangelical gospel I had been taught as a child and in the Christian schools and occasional churches I attended. I could not understand how I could go forward and be 'saved' (something I did on many occasions) and yet still be dominated by sin. Only later did I understand that while I was still a sinner, sin no longer was my master and while it will frustrate me all my days, the fact that I resisted it and would grow in grace testified to the work of the Spirit within me. While sin was still present in quantity, the quality of my life and my posture toward it had changed and despite my many failings - this fact remains true. By God's grace I have a blessed hope and continue to persevere and on the basis of Christ's finished work, I have assurance as long as I stay focused on the Redeemer.
There are problems with the formulations of Calvinism to be sure and I know that many within that camp (to which I was once a zealous adherent) would undoubtedly label me as an Arminian of Wesley's stripe. Nothing could be further from the truth. These doctrines presented here are deplorable and unscriptural. The answer is found elsewhere and the problem is in the nature of theology itself.
Finally, in light of these doctrines we must consider Wesley's very own statement:
"Gain all you can, Save all you can, Give all you can."
In addition to the already touched on low view of sin, and the erroneous even deadly view of sanctification (treating it as an optional second work of grace and empowerment as opposed to mortification), the imperative to seek gain and wealth is beyond the pale. Wesley's call to seek this mammon in order to give it away is easily subject to rationalisation and without a doubt it has been abused beyond measure. Give, he says - all you can. Well, there's the rub. Wealth can deceive. Riches choke faith and in a rich and decadent culture, one's wants are easily confused with one's needs and what one can give is quickly diminished.
Additionally I think of someone like Andrew Carnegie whose Social Darwinist creed is the official policy and ethic of today's Republican Party and the Evangelical Right. After manipulating markets, crushing competitors, and exploiting and at times violently suppressing his workers, he remade himself into a philanthropist and we're constantly exhorted to celebrate his greatness for his libraries and museums and such like. All to often, gain and save are pursued at not only the expense of faith but basic New Testament ethics. You can then give but if what you give is little more than dirty money effectively stolen and stained with blood - then you've given nothing. It wasn't yours to give. You're just a criminal trying to assuage conscience and launder your ill-gotten gains. Or worse, you're trying to make a name for yourself or buy your way into respectability and immortality.
Given Wesley's low view of sin, the fact that he would issue such an exhortation should not surprise us. What he meant for good and was no doubt sincere has over time been revealed to be an example of less than Biblical thinking and ultimately a most grievous imperative. Can Wesley be blamed for the obscene abuses of these doctrines? Some think so and yet others think the charge unfair. All great men have their ideas corrupted or in other cases developed and taken in directions they did not intend. It is sobering to say the least. The practical result is that financial success is equated with virtue. The Wesleyan tradition is not alone in this. In reality its a blemish on the entire history of Magisterial Protestantism and its symbiosis with the bourgeoisie and the Middle Class values that resulted. And yet if this wasn't bad enough, it has taken particularly egregious and obscene turns within contemporary Evangelicalism.
One can respect John Wesley and yet it's also safe to say this Wesleyan ideological and doctrinal triad has proven to be nothing less than a destructive formula that bled into Evangelicalism. These combined notions watered down the gospel and allowed a kind of pseudo-spiritual Christianity to emerge which is still with us today. Wesleyanism's low view of sin and the sin nature opened many bad doors. Known for holiness and putting great stock in sanctification, the Wesleyan movement is actually revealed as having an impoverished understanding of the concept - which ironically results not in self-denial and mortification but a bogus kind of empowerment fostering not meekness and humility, but Pharisaical pride and presumption. When wed to mammonism it takes a particularly dark turn. Ultimately the theology has proven to be self-destructive and the history of Methodism's fall into theological modernism and compromise, its influence on Evangelicalism, and the diseased theology and testimony of the Charismatic movement have borne this out.