Anyone who says that man is totally depraved couldn't be all bad.
Posted by Discoshaman at novembre 11, 2004 01:32 AM | TrackBack
yeesh.
Posted by: paul bowman at novembre 11, 2004 06:15 AMGreat comoment.
Posted by: pentamom at novembre 12, 2004 04:55 PMWell, uh, yeah. Though their explanation for how he gets that way is a bit cockeyed, IMHO.
It's certainly the case that the failure of epistemology is rooted in the refusal to know the foundational Truth that underlies the search for foundations of truth. OTOH, for those who personally know the Truth, veritas liberabit vos.
Posted by: pgepps at novembre 13, 2004 02:43 PMepps-
Could you elaborate on how the Calvinist understanding of the Fall is deficient, in your opinion? It'd make for interesting convo.
Posted by: Discoshaman at novembre 16, 2004 02:12 AMHappy New Year! With the immediacy of your Ukraine elections (I hope) fading slightly, maybe there'll be some time to take this one up again. [sorry, this is longish--don't have to all be this long]
Calvinism seems generally to follow (with some minor internal variations) the same model of virtue/depravity as the tradition that tracks through Augustine and Luther. I've ended up organizing different views of "original sin" by their treatment of three categories: corruption (disease, disorder, death); taint (unacceptability before God); and guilt (moral/legal liability to blame/penalty).
The Latin Fathers from Tertullian, through Cyprian, to Augustine, taught that taint was inherited, and required baptismal regeneration to wash it away; that guilty behavior followed as a matter of course from a tainted being; and that corruption was the consequence of that guilt.
Luther modified that slightly, and Calvin again slightly, but the basic imprint of the Augustinian tradition remains: we sin because of the "stuff" we're made of, we're guilty because we sin, we suffer because we're guilty. Which makes talk about "the exceeding sinfulness of sin" rather silly, because if it's just "stuff" then it's not particularly sinful at all. Just damned inconvenient stuff to be made of, and I use the term advisedly.
Of course, some of Calvin's followers invented a complicated juridical theory involving covenants never described in Scripture and some accounting that makes Oil-for-Food look sane, but the federalist POV doesn't add up (its thousands of followers to the side). Natural or realistic theories of Adam's headship would both make more sense, though they won't give the view of "original sin" Augustinians are looking for.
I prefer the Romans 1 approach, which has the merit of being Biblical and fairly free of chimeras: Jews and Gentiles alike are the sort of beings in the sort of world that will, at some point, come to knowledge of God; they actively resist coming to know God, making themselves averse to Him; they are, as a result, foolish and ignorant of His law; they therefore must either be redeemed in the midst of their folly and ignorance, or die in their sins.
I would therefore organize my view of "original sin" as follows: corruption is inherited, as part of the divine economy for limiting the sinfulness of humanity while also providing for redemption--that is, we all are subject to disease, disorder, and death. Our being such doesn't follow from guilt, but from God's purposes; it is a consequence of Adam's sin, but not a punishment for it--like burning one's hand is a consequence of playing with fire, but not a punishment for it. One need not be guilty to die--only born in this mortal age.
Guilt follows from our aversion to God's grace, because (as John says) sin is anomia, the state of lawlessness that follows from suppression of the knowledge of God (which necessarily, given our God-ward and contingent design, means suppression of all God-ward thoughts; culture is a big shell-game to keep us from ever finishing a thought with God's presence). To be averse to God is to be at enmity with Him, to be rejecting His love; particular instances of "actual sin" will follow. If you will, I hold that "original sin" is a volitional state--Thomas would call it a habitus--, of which "actual sins" are behavioral instances.
Finally "taint" is really just another angle-of-vision on guilt. Guilt is describing the heart averse to God from the POV of the blameworthiness of the behaviors--they are blameworthy because they manifest an aversion to God. Attempt to describe the spiritual/relational state that follows from aversion to God, and you are talking about the "taint" of the sinful person's nature (except in some theological discussions, in which "taint" is yet another chimera--it's neither guilt nor corruption, just the je ne sais quois of sinfulness).
Now, can guilt and taint be collectivized in some ways? Sure, with regard to their particulars--why am I depraved in a way my culture/family/heritage helps me toward, rather than one it discourages me from? So, if we start to extrapolate that, and especially when we start tinkering with intertextuality, "collective memory," and other such often-misunderstood stuff, we notice that the particulars of depravity have an amazing variety, but the underlying phenomenon is always the same:
People refuse to know God, and become tainted and guilty in their willful ignorance. They must then be confronted with a truth which, beyond being "merely" true, is also transformative and redemptive: Jesus Christ Himself, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Well, I gave it my shot. Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
PGE