PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN HUMANITY

A RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO SANG-EHIL HAN, Ph.D.

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

TS630 THEOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY OF THE SPIRIT

BY

WILMER ESTRADA-CARRASQUILLO

CLEVELAND, TN

MAY 11, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. 3

THE FALLEN HUMANITY……………………………………………… 3

THE IMAGO DEI AFTER THE FALL…………………………………… 6

A PENTECOSTAL POINT OF VIEW…………………………………… 10

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………… 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………. 17

3

INTRODUCTION

One of the questions that I have personally struggle to answer, as a Christian is, who

are we today? Even though you and I are living in a fallen state, can we consider ourselves

full humanity or complete human beings. If the Spirit is our source of life in the beginning

of all things, did He leave the first man and woman by themselves after the fall?

These questions have been answered from many theological perspectives, but the

Pneumatology vantage point has been missing in action. My proposal is to respond to the

above questions and others that will come up in the discussion as I use the Holy Spirit as

the main filter. First, we will take a brief look at the account of Adam’s disobedience and

it consequences. Second, I will present what did the Church Fathers, the Reformers and

contemporary theologians have said about the human state after the fall. Finally, I will

present two biblical accounts to respond to what have been the historical views and

present a Pentecostal view of who we are today and how this is important for us

Pentecostals.

I. THE FALLEN HUMANITY

It is impossible to talk about human beings and the present state of them without

taking a look at the events that occurred in the Garden and became the “unnatural” reality

of humanity. My focus in this section it is not to argue why was a tree placed in the

Garden that became central in the process to our fallen state, but first, to reiterate that our

present state as humans is a product of the Eden historical event and second, to overview

some of the theological pronunciations that have been voiced out as a product of the study

of the fall of humanity.

4

After God had created humanity (Gen. 1:27 & 2:7) He gave them instructions on

how they should rule in the Garden. Most of the instructions that are recorded in the

biblical account were permissive, but only one of them was not. Nevertheless, Adam and

Eve decided to disobey God in the sole area where they were advised not to; this

disobedience marred what was God’s intention for humanity and thus sin entered into the

world.

Out of this historical event we can find several views about the fallen state of the

human being. For purposes of this paper and by way of summary I will only mention just

three of these views. First, Pelagianism states that humans are innocent when they come to

the world. Therefore, they can obey God and have no guilt over them. Second, Arianism

states that humanity is depraved. Nevertheless, it can cooperate with God. Humans are not

free of guilt; there is potentiality of guilt in humanity. Third, Calvinism calls for a total

depravity of the human being. There is no capability in man to cooperate with God and

the guilt is actually in humanity.1

Though this is not the main subject of the paper, I have to be clear that the

Scripture is clear in stating that we all have sin, therefore Pelagianism stands far away

from the Scripture. The result of the fall is the depravity of the human being.2 Therefore

the relationship and “all-access pass” that was part of the every day activity of Adam and

1 Table adaptation. See Norman L. Geisler, Sin/Salvation, Reprinted ed., vol. 3 of Systematic Theology

(Bloomington, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), page 145.

2 Total depravity does not means that everyone is as thoroughly depraved in his actions as he could possibly be, nor that everyone will indulge in every form of sin, nor that a person cannot appreciate and even do acts of goodness; but it does mean that the corruption of sin extends to all men and to all parts of all men so that there is nothing within the natural man that can give him merit in God’s sight. Ryrie, Charles C., and Charles C. C. Ryrie. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. New ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1989, p. 111.

5

Eve in the Garden (Gen 2:8) was torn apart and thus the rest of humanity felt short of the

glory of God. All people consent to Adam’s sin (Rom 5:12). The repercussion is a death

sentence, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;” and

“now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live

forever”3 (Gen. 3:22-23). Thus, the Lord God sent him out from the Garden.

How this death does look like? If this death is for real, how will man survive this

death row sentence? What will happen with the early statement of “Let Us make man in

Our image, according to Our likeness…”4 (Gen. 1:26) and “God created man in His own

image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen.

1:27)? Have we lost God’s image? Have we lost God’s likeness? Is our humanity short of

what it was intended to be before the fall? Who are we now? These theological questions

have been central to the development of the doctrine of man and sin. Different groups as

the Church Fathers, the Magisterial Reformers and contemporary theologians have tried to

respond to these questions in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, as Pentecostals we can also

contribute in this discussion. If creation lost something, what was it and how can we get it

back?

Before presenting a Pentecostal response to these questions lets look to what has

been the historical responses of some of the groups already mentioned about the image of

humanity. Once we have mapped out an oversight of them, then we will move toward a

Pentecostal view of the present state of the image of humanity and its future.

3 New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ge 1:26). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman

Foundation. 4 All scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible.

6

II. THE IMAGO DEI AFTER THE FALL

History is a witness of the many voices that have talked about the imago Dei5 in

humanity after the fall. It is interesting how an expression that does not have many

references in the Bible has been discussed so much in theology. Now, the lack of

references does not mean that it is not important, probably this is the reason of the broad

discussion. The major discussion has centered on defining what is image and what is

likeness. Moreover, the central questions is, are the terms the same or not? Let’s take a

look at some of the views that have been presented since the Church Fathers through the

Magisterial Reformers up to contemporary theologians.

Church Fathers

The Church Fathers provided the foundation for what is has been the long-standing

interpretation of the image of God. This classical view, which still has adherents today, is

“understands the image of God as anthropological.”6 The basic understanding of this

classical view of the imago Dei is that the divine image is something that we posses, this

includes the properties that make us human beings.7 For example lets look at an example

of Origen. They said:

In recording the first creation of man, Moses before all others says, ‘And God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness.’ Then he adds afterwards, ‘And God made man; in the image of God made he him; male and female made he them, and he blessed them.’ Now the fact that he said, ‘He made him in the image of God’ and was silent about the likeness point to nothing else but this, the man

5 Or image of God. Both terms will be use interchangeably. 6 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2000), page 219. 7 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2000), page 219.

7

received the honor of God’s image in the first creation, whereas the perfection of God’s likeness was reserved for him at the consummation.8

First, for many of the church fathers, as Origen had stated, existed a difference between

the image Dei and the likeness. Second, because the divine image is what makes us

human, we retain the image even tough our fallen state. This is why the early father linked

reason as the resemblance of God in us. In sum the image of God was link to our natural

human powers, especially reason. On the contrary likeness was a supernatural gift; the

original righteousness which was bestowed to Adam.

The Reformers

The Magisterial Reformers rejected completely the distinction between the image

and the likeness of God. Both, Martin Luther and John Calvin, in their commentaries and

lecture on the book of Genesis stood away form the Church Fathers theologically and

exegetically. On one hand Luther offered a unitary view of the image of God. He argued

that the image of God includes the idea of the original righteousness, which Origen and

other had separated.9 For Luther the image of God consisted primarily in the original

righteousness of God.

Calvin who also stood in the same ground of Luther said: “Only le it be decided

that the image of God, which appears or sparkles in the external characters, is spiritual.

There is no small controversy concerning the image and likeness among expositors who

see a difference, whereas in reality there is none, between the to words; likeness being

8 Andrew Louth, ed., Genesis 1-11 (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), page 29.

9 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2000), page 221.

8

only added by way of explanation.”10 Now this does not means that there is a denial of the

presence of God in the sinful humanity. What both Calvin and Luther believed was that

the image was “frightfully deformed.”11

While the Church Fathers had an anthropological view of the imago Dei, the

Reformers inclined to a Christological stance. Because of the depraved state of the fallen

humanity, the only way of restoring the image was through Christ. In sum, the bearer and

restorer of the image of God in us is Christ.

Interestingly, the work of the Reformer also, brought another view. This one was

eschatological centered. Based on the accounts of Genesis 9:6 they restated some ideas of

the Christological view. They expound, even though the image had been lost, it could be

restored through the Word and the Holy Spirit.12 But this restoration is not attained now; it

will reach completion in the Last Days. In sum, for the Reformers the image of God is the

goal or destiny that God intends for his creatures.

Modern Theologians

How has modern theology seen humanity? In what way did or did not humanity

convey God’s image? Was there view of the imago Dei consonant to those who anteceded

them? Lets take a look at what some modern theologians and groups have said about this.

10 W. L. Jenkis, Compendium of the Institutes of Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1939),

page 31. 11 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2000), page 221. 12 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2000), page 223.

9

For Karl Bath the “God-likeness” in man is not a quality in humanity per se. Barth

says: “There is no point in asking in which of man’s peculiar attributes and attitudes it

consists.”13 For Barth, the very thing that makes us man and woman is that we are made in

the image of God. Moreover, Barth expands, “Man is the repetition of this divine form of

life; it’s a copy and a reflection.” We can conclude from Barth’s interpretation that image

of God in man is neither anthropological, Christological or eschatological, but it totally

reside in God’s Being. Because He is God we are man.

Another Contemporary Theologian who has expressed his thought on the imago

Dei is Bonhoeffer. In his book Creation and Fall he says the following about the imago

Dei and the likeness; the analogy of the human to God is best understood in two forms far

more than what analogia entis14, he explains. The first is by the analogy between our

relationship with God and one another. Second, we have to understand it within the

context God’s own inter-Trinitarian relationship, what he called analogia relationis.15

Bonhoeffer’s imago Dei is defined by the Trinitarian relationship that exists within the

Godhead. In sum, our humanity is defined by the communal relationships that we have

with one another.

These two are only a small representation of the individual voices in modern

theology that had spoke about the image of God. But it is not only about individuals who

13 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. Vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, part 1. Edited by G.W.

Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), page 184.

14 The relationship between God as creator and humans as creatures. It establishes the legitimacy of

using analogy as a way for finite humans to able to speak of the infinite God. 15 David F. Ford ed The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology Since 1918

(Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005), page 50.

10

have expressed themselves as Barth and Bonhoeffer, we can also talk about movements as

liberation, black16 and feminist theology among others. In the book Modern Theologians,

in the section dedicated to feminism, gender and theology, Rachel Muers says about the

image of God, “It is important to find female images and symbols of God – and if so,

where are these to be sought, and on what grounds can they claimed normative?”17 I

believe this is a powerful question and with all probability liberation and black theology

are asking the same question within there own context.

Does the image of God is what forms our humanity? Are only the references of

Genesis chapter 1:26-27, 5:1 and 9:6 the only areas in the bible that share light to our

humanity? How can Pentecostal hermeneutic and reading of the Scripture contribute to the

discussion about our humanity in God? These are questions that I will have as a backdrop

in the following sections.

III. A PENTECOSTAL POINT OF VIEW

As we have seen in the section that have preceded, much has been said about the

expression let Us make to our image and likeness. But to talk about our humanity before

or after the fall it is not only about the image and likeness. As Pentecostals we can make a

sound contribution and give answers to many of the questions that have been part of the

16 One example is the book written by Richard Wayne Willils Jr. on Martin Luther King Jr. He writes,

“The Image of God written by In this book Willis states that Martin Luther King’s use of the imago Dei language existed on the edge of a historical dialogue and quest for human and civil rights and must therefore be viewed from within the rich traditional context from which he spoke and acted.” See, Richard Wayne Wills Sr, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Image of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2009), page 3.

17 Having called into question the traditional use of masculine language in theological texts – both to

refer to God an to refer to humanity – o the grounds that it excluded women from the image of God and from full humanity, one must ask what can justify the use of any particular language in speaking of God. See, David F. Ford ed, The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology Since 1918 (Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005), page 446-447.

11

historical discussion of what it means to be human and what is our current state today by

way of the reading of other biblical accounts.

To be fair to what has been said before, I have to say that the voices that have

talked about this are not wrong in all they said, but I really think that they have fell short

in presenting a position that we can adopt as Pentecostal. If I had to pick one, the closest

of all is what it Luther said in his lectures about Genesis. He stated that it was through the

Word and the Holy Spirit that we could recuperate our image.18 Still, this position is very

much centered in eschatology. Though as Pentecostal we are for the “last things” and the

“not yet”. What about the “all ready”? What about today? These questions are where the

classical, the relational and dynamic views fall short.

Biblical Accounts

Genesis 2:7

When we talk about our humanity we cannot overlook what the writer of the book

of Genesis says in chapter 2 and verse 7. It is surprising how this verse has been unfound

in the discussion of what it means to be human. The second chapter of Genesis is

dedicated to the creation of man and women. Yes, there is a record of it in 1:26-27, but

chapter 2 is more detailed than the former. Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed

man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man

became a living being.” Lets take a look at this verse in two parts to further the discussion.

The first part of this verse makes an emphasis of the bodily creation of man. The

Triune God took from the dust of the ground and formed man. Up to this point there is no

18 Martin Luther, Luther's Works Lectures On Genesis: Volume 2, Chapters 6-14 (Saint Louis: Concordia Pub House, 1960), page 141.

12

life in this man. The only thing that exists is the physical aspect of him. The man’s

humanity is not full yet, hence there is something missing. This calls for the second part of

this verse, which says, then God breathed life into his nostrils and he became a living

being. Man was not completed until the breath of life was in him. Though we do not have

the same account for women, still we can say that she was not completed until breath of

life was in her too. This verse has to makes us think farther than Genesis 1:26-27 does by

itself. Our humanity it is not about the natural attributes that we have attained, but it is the

Spirit of God who gives life.

Ezekiel 37.5

Is this biblical account the “hand of the Lord” takes the prophet to a valley of dry

bones. While being there the prophet is asked as if the bones could live again. Ezekiel

response to the questions was that only “You know”. Following to the prophets response

the Lord says to him in verse 5, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones, ‘Behold, I will

cause breath to enter you that you may come to life.”

This account is a cross-reference to what occurred in the Genesis account above.

These bones are lifeless, to a more extent; these bones did not have sinew flesh or skin.

After the first time that the Ezekiel prophesied the bones were covered with sinew, flesh

and skin. At this particular time the bodies are in the same state that man was in the first

part of Genesis 2:7, just a body. Thereafter the Ezekiel prophesizes once again over the

bodies, consequently “the breath came into them, and they came to life…”

A Pentecostal Response

Who are we after the fall? Are we close to be what we were made to be? To

answer these questions we have to expound the discussion. We cannot only concentrate in

13

the discussion about how the image and likeness have been marred or not and if whether

they are not the same. But as Pentecostals the question for us would be, what happened to

the breath of life that was breathed into man and woman? Did they loose it or not?

I believe that this question is far more central in the discussion of us as human

beings. In the two biblical accounts mentioned above, we see a common denominator.

Where there is no breath19, there is no life. When we study what happened in the Eden

account, it is far more important to know that in Adam and in Eve existed the Spirit of

life, than to know what happened to the imago Dei and the likeness. As long as there is the

breath of life in them, there was still an opportunity in man and in women to respond to

God’s call and mercy.

There is no doubt that this breath of life refers to the Third Peron of the Trinity, the

Holy Spirit. It is by the agency of the Sprit that human beings were infused with life. The

same Spirit that was hovering over the waters is now giving life to the man and woman.

Therefore the question of the Spirit’s activity in the life of man and woman after the fall

has to become central in the discussion of our humanity. Clark Pinnock in his book, The

Flame of Love says the following: “it was the Spirit that made Jesus “Christ”, not the

hypostatic union” 20 What does Clark means by this? I think this statement is very

powerful and consonant to what I want to establish. It was through the agency of the Holy

Spirit in Mary’s womb that Jesus’ humanity was able to become real. As it happened with

19 Both biblical accounts use the same Hebrew, ruah. 20 Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: IVP Academic,

1999), page 80.

14

Adam, Eve and the dry bones in the valley, in like manner, the agency of the Spirit

brought Jesus into life.

Why is this important to our Pentecostal Pneumatology? If our humanity is

attached to being alive; and if being alive is to have the breath of God, I believe that this

helps us to support our understanding of God’s prevenient grace for all human beings. The

Spirit of God is active in the life process of humanity, desiring to reestablish the

relationship that has been broken due to Adam’s disobedience. The Spirit’s activity in

each of us, not only points to our humanity and life, but also works as the agent of God’s

prevenient grace. A Spirit that was not lost in the fall of humanity, but which is still

active. If Calvin said that we were so deprived and depraved, how is it possible that since

the fall there is still linger in man some glimmerings of natural light? For the Reformer,

there was something in us that propelled us into God. Could it be that what really defines

our humanity and life, the Spirit, is what at the same time makes us react to God’s calling?

Our Wesleyan-Pentecostal heritage is clear of its synergistic view. On the one

hand, it is God who begins, maintains and fulfills the soteriological process in us, but also

there is an invitation for all of us to be participants in the process. Now, this reaction from

us does not forms in a vacuum, but the breath of life in us nurtures it. Scripture testifies

about this in different accounts. For example, in Genesis 3:9-10, God is calling Adam,

notice that man had fallen already, but still he had the capability to hear and to respond to

God. A second example would be Abram. What caused Abram to be obedient to God? If

he did not know God, what made him respond and become a participant in God’s calling?

If the Spirit of God is active in us to fulfill God’s prevenient grace, then we can answer

15

the question, what caused Abram to react and respond to God’s calling. It was the Holy

Spirit. As these two examples we can find many as with Saul and others.

It is not my desire to reject the importance of the discussion about the image and

likeness. Moreover I am not trying to undermine what Christ did at the cross. One

compliments the other and vice versa. But there is no way that humanity can respond to

God’s free invitation to become His sons and daughters if the Spirit of God is not acting

preveniently. It is through the Spirit that we accept Christ’s salvific act at the cross.

CONCLUSION

By no means I want to say that our fullness is complete in this fallen state. In the

telos οf all things we will be perfected. But we cannot deny that the agency of the Spirit of

God is in us since archei of all things. As I have stated in the beginning of this paper, the

discussion of the current state of humanity has been broad. Unfortunately, this discussion

has only been monopolized by the theme of the image and likeness of God. Also this

discussion has sailed through the waters of anthropology, Christology and eschatology.

Now, my intention has been to see our humanity through the lens of Pneumatology. By

taking a look through this lens I have come to the following conclusions. First, that in

Genesis 2:7 it was the breath of the Spirit being breathed through our nostrils that gave us

our humanity. Second, that even though Adam and Even lost their established relationship

with God and became depraved and deprived, they still heard His voice in their fallen

state. Third, that that breath of the Spirit in each of us works as that agent that makes us

respond to God’s prevenient grace. Finally, though we can our humanity is made possible

by the Holy Spirit breath of life; we will have our full manifestation in the restoration of

all things.

16

If we can see this activity of the Spirit in those persons who still have not come to

known Christ as they savior, this Pneumatological vantage point gives us a breath of hope

that something could happen if we keep sharing the Gospel to others. If the world is our

pulpit and the inhabitants who are not in Christ become our focus I believe that a great

harvest is awaiting us. This vantage point puts us closer to God than what historically we

have thought of. What if the breath of God is waiting to be fanned for that initial

experience of salvation?

17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrington, French L. Christian Doctrine: a Pentecostal Perspective. Cleveland, Tenn.: Pathway Press, 1992.

Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics. Vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, part 1. Edited by

G.W.Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,

1998. Geisler, Norman L. Sin/Salvation. Reprinted ed. Vol. 3 of Systematic Theology.

Bloomington, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 2004 González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. 2nd Revised

ed. Vol. 3 of A History of Christian Thought. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1987. Grenz, Stanley J. Theology For the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Louth, Andrew, ed. Genesis 1-11. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001. Luther, Martin. Luther's Works Lectures On Genesis: Volume 2, Chapters 6-14. Saint Louis:

Concordia Pub House, 1960. Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: an Introduction to Christian Theology.

2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Pinnock, Clark H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: IVP

Academic, 1999. Sr, Richard Wayne Wills. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Image of God. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, USA, 2009.