Holiness is Wholeness: According to the Options for Systematic Theology

Systematic theology may be a bad word for some, but here are the options on the moral attributes for it, based on how a person defines holy. Holy is a very important factor. So I think it is important to ponder these ways of seeing the whole and its parts systematically. It just might favor holiness is wholeness.


First choice (one or a combination of the major Protestant views):

holiness as comprehensiveness (broadly defined) and as cleanliness (narrowly defined) -Anglican

righteousness and justice with sanctification (holy defined broadly as whole work) (holy defined narrowly as set apart) - Lutheran

humility and truth with sanctification of the whole man (holy defined broadly) and as purity (holy defined narrowly) - Reformed

love and perfect love with entire sanctification (holy as synonymous with perfection) (holy connected to 2nd crisis) - Methodist

goodness and maturity with holiness is wholeness (clarifying the English language) - Baptist

Evaluation: There is much to be learned from each of these traditions. The major problems are slight contradictions and a measure of lack in clarity at some points.



Second choice (presently popular):

separate (holy) - relational

righteous

truthful

loving

good

Evaluation: There is a lack of clarity on how these moral attributes fit together and whether or not some of them are synonymous with holy, especially righteous.




Third choice (an older version of the second choice):

separate (holy) - essential

righteous

truthful

loving

good

Evaluation: Has fallen out of disfavor due to current philosophy and emphasis on relationships. It has the same problems as option 2.



Fourth choice (Popular in mid 1900s to today with some conservatives):

wholly other (holy) - combines relational and whole, whole modifies relational (other to versus other from also a major point, meant to mean a positive versus negative relationship)

righteous

truthful

loving

good

Evaluation: Also quite popular due to its link to relationship. Also liked for its positive emphasis. Problem is that it brings back the wholeness idea as a modifier without adequate etymology to prove its point, after relying on it to prove that separation or other is the primary meaning. Otherwise it suffers from same problems as both 2 and 3.



Fifth choice (My position systematically laid out):

wholly (holy) - holiness is wholeness

righteous & just (subordinate to whole, as a part)

truthful (subordinate to whole, as a part)

come out - relational (subordinate to truth)

loving (subordinate to whole, as a part)

good (subordinate to whole, as a part)

be separate - essential (subordinate to goodness)

pure (by fire) - essential (no mixture) (subordinate to goodness)

clean (by water) - essential (nothing unclean) (subordinate to goodness)

Evaluation: Has advantages in that it uses much of the first option, but eliminates the contradictions and clarifies some points. There remains however weaknesses in that pure and clean could be seen as either part of the attribute of righteous and just, because it could deal with amounts of impurities or cleanliness, or of love, because they are processes by which pure or clean are reached.


The fifth positin has some advantages, that I like, which is why I hold this position. I have kept the evaluation sections very simple. I hope I have not seemed unfair with any one position. Some things have been left out for brevity's sake. Please let me know, if I need corrections.
May God bless you and may He make you whole.


In Christ,


Pastor Jon