Seeking your assistance here. I'm reading John's sermon, 'Justification by Faith' and came upon something I hadn't noticed before. This statement is early in the sermon, where he is establishing the general ground for the doctrine of justification by faith. He begins, appropriately, in the creation, but he includes this phrase that I'm not altogether sure what he implies. It's the part in
bold below (and also shown in the title of this entry).
To man thus upright and perfect, God gave a perfect law, to which he required full and perfect obedience. He required full obedience in every point, and this to be performed without any intermission, from the moment man became a living soul, till the time of his trial should be ended. No allowance was made for any falling short: As indeed, there was no need of any; man being altogether equal to the task assigned, and thoroughly furnished for every good word and work.
What do you think he meant by this? Did Wesley have a supposition of how history might have panned out differently had Adam & Even remained obedient? I'm aware that theologians in the Orthodox Church (from St. Irenaeus) maintain that even had 'The Fall' not happened, that the Word still would have been made flesh. There is a clarification to be made here in what is meant by 'perfect': i.e., just how 'perfect' were our first parents created? St. Irenaeus speaks of Adam & Eve as innocent, though he calls them infants/children. This infers that humans were created with 'room for growth,' as it were. This view, the way I understand it at this point, maintains that Adam & Eve were created 'good' but not 'perfect,' at least not in the absolutist sense. Hence, the goal would be that humans would grow and that the Incarnation would perfect the humanity, uniting us to the Triune God in a way that our first parents were not (originally, anyway). It is the progression from the "external" to the "internal".
One might read such into Wesley's phrase above, but in his multiple declarations of the
felix culpa tradition where he speaks of 'the fall' as the "happy fault," Wesley says that had it not been for the original sin, then we would not have known Christ because sin was the very grounds for and necessitated the Incarnation (see sermons 'On the Fall of Man' and 'God's Love to Fallen Man'). Furthermore, he says that in the wake of the Incarnation that humans can now enjoy higher degrees of happiness and holiness than humanity prior to the fall. This idea seems to be derived scripturally from Romans 5.20:
"But where sin increased, grace increased all the more." So in a sense, they argue for a similar conclusion (that humanity in Christ enjoys something of a higher degree than our first parents) but take very different avenues to get there (St. Irenaeus: this was part of the plan even before the sin;
felix culpa tradition: it is because of the sin that this is possible). So if Wesley falls in this latter camp, then I return to the question: what does he mean by this phrase "
...till the time of his trial should be ended"?
What do you think he meant by this? Did Wesley have a supposition of how history might have panned out differently had Adam & Even remained obedient? I'm aware that theologians in the Orthodox Church (from St. Irenaeus) maintain that even had 'The Fall' not happened, that the Word still would have been made flesh. There is a clarification to be made here in what is meant by 'perfect': i.e., just how 'perfect' were our first parents created? St. Irenaeus speaks of Adam & Eve as innocent, though he calls them infants/children. This infers that humans were created with 'room for growth,' as it were. This view, the way I understand it at this point, maintains that Adam & Eve were created 'good' but not 'perfect,' at least not in the absolutist sense. Hence, the goal would be that humans would grow and that the Incarnation would perfect the humanity, uniting us to the Triune God in a way that our first parents were not (originally, anyway). It is the progression from the "external" to the "internal".
One might read such into Wesley's phrase above, but in his multiple declarations of the felix culpa tradition where he speaks of 'the fall' as the "happy fault," Wesley says that had it not been for the original sin, then we would not have known Christ because sin was the very grounds for and necessitated the Incarnation (see sermons 'On the Fall of Man' and 'God's Love to Fallen Man'). Furthermore, he says that in the wake of the Incarnation that humans can now enjoy higher degrees of happiness and holiness than humanity prior to the fall. This idea seems to be derived scripturally from Romans 5.20: "But where sin increased, grace increased all the more." So in a sense, they argue for a similar conclusion (that humanity in Christ enjoys something of a higher degree than our first parents) but take very different avenues to get there (St. Irenaeus: this was part of the plan even before the sin; felix culpa tradition: it is because of the sin that this is possible). So if Wesley falls in this latter camp, then I return to the question: what does he mean by this phrase "...till the time of his trial should be ended"?
No comments:
Post a Comment