God created Adam (and all creation) good. I think it invalid to say that Adam was 'perfect' for if he was 'perfect' he would have never sinned. Adam was created under the covenant of works and he too was subject to temptation and expected to obey. The only advantage the Adam had over his children was that he was not cursed with a sinful nature. This is a far cry from perfect.
This is why we modify the term 'perfection' with the word 'Christian,' and often use the term entire sanctification instead. Perfection does not necessarily mean faultlessness or impeccability. It can also mean complete or full-grown or mature. It is this definition that fits most closely the Greek words that we translate as 'perfect' (telos). In the Christian sense, it is simply loving God and man with one's whole heart. This doesn't rule out temptation, nor does it rule out sin should one let other concerns creep in. Nor does it rule out spiritual growth. In fact, it allows for unimpeded growth, since one is no longer fighting oneself to do God's will.
I thought the original term was Sinless perfection? If that is the case then both modifyers, Sinless and Entire, denote a completeness. If spiritual growth is both possible and expected then I would say that the modifyers connote a state that contradicts the idea of spiritual growth. Why not simply Christian maturity? It appears to me that Wesleyans wish to portray a condition that goes beyond simple Christian maturity. Christian maturity connotes a state of tested obedience and experience. It follows Paul's idea of a race or battle. We understand the idea through the history of our own lives. The qualifications you add to the Wesleyan doctrine seem to fit better with Christian maturity then any idea of completeness that the modifyers imply.
I'm interested in your thoughts on 2 Cor 12:9. The idea of weakness being our strength and how this applies to entire sinless perfect sanctification? ;)
Again, we seem to have a problem with the term 'perfect.' I am using the term 'perfect' to denote a completeness and fitness for the purpose set for someone or something, you are using it to denote a faultlessness. At the same time, I should point out that it is a theological subject on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian line to discuss "Adamic perfection," or the original nature of Mankind.
I thought the original term was Sinless perfection?
The original term, Scripturally, is entire sanctification (1 Thess. 5:23) or perfect love (1 Jn 4:17). Another term that Wesley used for it was Christian perfection. Truthfully, the only people who used the term sinless perfection from the get-go were those opposed to the notion that it is possible to be filled to the fullest with God's love in this lifetime. We, with Wesley, do not reject the term, since there is a sense in which it is true. But we do not argue for the term, since many think it to mean its own form of pride and self-reliance.
If that is the case then both modifyers, Sinless and Entire, denote a completeness.
Not really. "Sinless," for one thing, brings all sorts of baggage with it, including thoughts of presumptuousness and pride. It also denotes an impeccability, an inability to sin, that does not follow from the term 'entire'.
If spiritual growth is both possible and expected then I would say that the modifyers connote a state that contradicts the idea of spiritual growth.
Neither modifier really connotes a state that has anything to do with spiritual growth; they have more to do with the ethical and moral character of a person.
Why not simply Christian maturity? It appears to me that Wesleyans wish to portray a condition that goes beyond simple Christian maturity. Christian maturity connotes a state of tested obedience and experience.
It works, although there is a just as much a problem with the terms here as with Christian perfection, namely that to many, 'maturity' does not have ethical connotations. If one were to ask someone to describe a mature Christian, it is doubtful, in my mind, that they would describe a person who exhibited the fruits of the Spirit in abundance. If one were to ask someone to describe a perfect Christian, one would be more likely to get the desired result: loving, kind, trusting, joyful, etc. It also does not follow that a "perfect" Christian, ethically, is a spiritually mature Christian. In other words, it is quite possible to have a Christian who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself, but is still fairly inexperienced in both the physical and spiritual life.
It follows Paul's idea of a race or battle. We understand the idea through the history of our own lives.
I'm interested in your thoughts on 2 Cor 12:9. The idea of weakness being our strength and how this applies to entire sinless perfect sanctification? ;)
Well, the context of the passage has something to do with a "thorn in the flesh" that God would not take away from Paul despite his thrice requesting it. There is debate about what exactly that "thorn in the flesh" was. Some say it was some besetting sin (although 'flesh' does not always mean 'sinful nature' in the Greek, nor is it very Scriptural that God would keep a man beset by a sin, when Jesus' purpose was "to destroy the works of the devil," viz., sin); others say that it was a physical ailment: poor eyesight, an ear ache (Tertullian), or a head ache (Chrysostom), something of this sort. This seems to fit with Scripture more readily than God keeping a person under the thumb, so to speak, of a God-displeasing impulse or desire.
Another view says that the 'thorn in the flesh' and the 'messenger of Satan' were both references to the false apostle who Paul had to deal with in Corinth. Either way, through bodily infirmity or external pressure, Paul asked for this 'thorn' to be removed, and the Lord declined, replying, "My grace is sufficient for thee. For my strength is made perfect in weakness." To quote Clarke's Commentary on this passage, "The more, and the more violently, thou art afflicted and tried, being upheld by my power, and prospered in all thy labours, the more eminently will my power be seen and acknowledged. For the weaker the instrument I use, the more the power of my grace shall be manifested."
Another interesting note from Clarke's Commentary, this one in denial of the view that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was a besetting sin, is the note on verse 9, "therefore I will glory in my infirmities":
Therefore, his infirmities do not mean his corruptions, or sins, or sinfulness of any kind; for it would be blasphemous for any man to say, I will rather glory that God leaves my corruptions in me, than that he should take them away.
Hence, the passage has little to do with entire sanctification, but is more aimed at comforting the Christian that the Lord upholds us through all trials, and that his power shows through "completely" (perfectly) in those areas where it is obvious that it was not us--our weaknesses.