Creation and Holiness
Most of us read Genesis 3-11 as the grand narrative of the Fall of Humanity and sin's saturation across the globe. One classic understanding of the Genesis 12-Revelation is then to read these texts as God's "answer" to the problem set out in Genesis 3-11. Genesis 1-2 then serve as a precursor to the Bible's story by describing the goodness and perfection of God's Creation. Humanity is created in God's likeness and image. Humanity stands in substantial (perfect?) relationships with God, the non-human world, and itself as male and female. All of this, of course, is undone in Genesis 3 and following. Other texts such as Psalm 8 (post Fall) still seem to imply a rather high view of humanity.
How does our view of humanity shape our understanding of holiness?
How does our understanding of Creation affect the way in which we articulate a doctrine of Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification?
Does Entire Sanctification/Christian Perfection mark a return to Eden, something less, or something more?
posted by Brian Russell @ 1:52 PM
8 Comments:
In the circles I move in, I have never been forced to think of a world without Adam. Yet in terms of holiness in life, I suppose I think of the Holy Spirit as the possibility of empowered living that makes it possible for us to be what we are supposed to be, to walk as we are made to walk. You could express that possibility in narrative terms as at least a partial return to what Adam was before he sinned.
My guess is that the answer to your great question, Brian, relates most directly with Eschatology for mahy people.
So the question is not simply how and when it will happen, but WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. For me, I believe the descriptions in Revelation, however you take them, deal with The Holy explicitly, not only of the Bride, but also of the planet and the whole post-whatever existences.
Now, in a related note, I've always felt that on a purely pragmatic note that a "post-millenial" view of the world and Revelation fits hand-in-glove with the holiness movement.
Ken, I understand all of your comments except for the first sentence. Can you say more about "I have never been forced to think of a world without Adam"?
David, interesting thoughts. I had not considered the natural link with eschatology. I know that the wider Wesleyan-Methodist tradition is all over the map in terms of eschatology, but I am mostly ignorant of emphases of the holiness movement. The Pilgrim Holiness tradition was strongly pre-Mill (if I recall correctly), but what about the rest? I am thinking historically and not simply today where we find pan-Left Behindism or whatever everywhere.
Thanks for the conversation.
Perhaps my stream of consciousness was taking me far afield of what you were discussing. What I meant was that I have never moved in theological circles where I've been forced to explain the nature of "fallenness" or ideal holiness without the presumption of a historical Adam. You mentioned the original meaning of Psalm 8, that does not seem to presuppose a Fall, much as most Jewish interpreters of Genesis would not. But Paul presupposes that Adam is the beginning of the sin/condemnation problem Christ solves. I took your question in the direction, "What then would a Christian do with sinfulness and holiness in the absence of an Adamic Fall?" But that clearly wasn't where you were going.
ha! - "Pan-Left-Behindism"
:-)
I was listening to Dr. Robert Lyon's lecture from the 1970's at Asbury titled "Foundations for Christian Perfection." In the middle of his lecture, he actually made David's point - he said that he did not think that one could be premillenial and hold to a robust doctrine of Entire Sanctification.
He also made the point that I was trying to raise in my post about the link with Creation. He grounded his thinking in Creation by arguing that God is intently interested in this world and that Entire Sanctification is something that God wishes to accomplish in this world.
The intersection of Creation and Eschatology in this discussion is crucial. Good call Dave! Of course, the problem is where we fit in between.
The Church Fathers debated over whether the Fall could happen all over again after the Consumation. Origen's formulations implied yes. Gregory of Nyssa answered no: we will be changed in the eschaton into a form of humanity that will no longer be in threat of falling again. This became the orthodox view.
Here's the way Augustine formulated it:
Creation - posse non peccare(possible to not sin)
Fall - non posse non peccare
(not possible to not sin)
Consumation - non posse peccare
(not possible to sin)
The remaining debate in the West is over how much humanity participates proleptically in the consumation and how much we are still tied down by the fall. Wesley's answer was that we can be restored to the original righteousness of Adam during this life; thus, the perfected christian is again 'posse non peccare', able to avoid sinning.
For me, I wonder if this is radical enough. Who really wants to "go back"? I am more interested in "go forward" - foretasting glory divine. This is the where the proto-pentecostalism of the post-wesley holiness movement is helpful: we are actually proleptically participating in the eschaton now, not just being restored to Genesis 1-2. The radical politics regarding women and slaves of course flow right from this.
As for pre- vs. post-mil, I wonder if both views are quite capable of sustaining a perfectionist view, provided they are equipped with some kind of understanding of prolepsis as outlined above. If so, the difference would remain that the pre-mil would certainly lean toward more "crisis" forms of perfection and post-mil more towards "process." As a Holiness Barthian and therfore lover of "crisis", I certainly lean more towards the former.
John... incredibly enjoyable post. In addition to some great Latin summaries, I was particularly delighted with the following turn of phrase:
"where the proto-pentecostalism of the post-wesley holiness movement..."
Post a Comment
<< Home