Original Sin
Talking with my brother Tim the other night about crazy weather, climate change, and gas. I said that I have no real doubt that human ingenuity and technology will move humanity away from the need for massive amounts of oil to consume. Our conversation continued:
"I fully expect that oil will become less and less necessary, but what I wonder is... is..." I stopped, thinking for the right words to use.
Tim helped fill them in. "...is whether the cure might be worse than the disease."
"Exactly."
"It will be. It's called original sin."
Bingo. Just one reflection of the damned state of the world outside God's intervention.
"I fully expect that oil will become less and less necessary, but what I wonder is... is..." I stopped, thinking for the right words to use.
Tim helped fill them in. "...is whether the cure might be worse than the disease."
"Exactly."
"It will be. It's called original sin."
Bingo. Just one reflection of the damned state of the world outside God's intervention.
posted by Aaron Perry at
3:08 PM
11 Comments:
AP..could you add your brother tim's blog to your links on the side? I'd like to stop in on it once in a while.
Wow - the future will have vehicles fueled by Adamic Depravity. I see it now - millions of Calvinists cruising down the freeway in their fancy cars while we Wesleyan/Arminians peddle our bikes along like so many Amish visiting the big city. I may have to rethink my theology when the time comes for long trips.
AJ, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Let me talk a little more around what I mentioned and see if it helps.
Believing in original sin is not particular to reformed theology. You can have many ways of seeing how it's passed on--social/relational, traducionism, a form of divine imputation, etc.--but that it is the state of not just among humans, but in the groaning world itself (Romans 8:21-22), is not necessarily tradition specific in the evangelical camp.
That humans have become very good at using creation--torturing her secrets from her, as Francis Bacon said--is a sign of human ingenuity and creativity suffering from sin. As a result, it yields both good (e.g., mass transportation) and bad (e.g., declining natural resources that crimp economic budgets in dire ways for some). I have no doubt that technology will help to curb the need for oil (Britain is taking steps in this direction with nuclear power and most of France's power is nuclear; you can find info on Wikipedia). This is a good thing. However, because the world is broken, these advances will create troubles of their own, just as sophisticated as their solutions.
I was just cracking a joke about the view in some wesleyan/arminian circles that Sanctification removes our sin nature and thinking how funny it would be if rather than the idea being "original sin means the cure for our oil dependence may be worse than the disease" and saying how funny would it be the answer to our oil dependence is a car that actually runs on original sin / our sinful nature. It was a bit of a leap - maybe I should have connected the dots. Anyway - I totally get your point, as usual I'm just sitting in the back corner trying to be funny.
Oh! LOL. Well, now that that's settled... :)
What if the answer to the world's concern for fueling our vehicles isn't an abuse or ravaging of creation but responsible use and care for the environment? Thus the answer to the "fuel crisis" isn't embracing Adamic Depravity, but sanctification. By finding more effective renewable resources, I think we are fulfilling our mandate to be good stewards of creation. As we are taking we need to be giving back to the environment. I'm not sure how much I should develop this here on your blog, but I'm sure there are further question to this.
BTW: I'm one of those Wesleyans who believes that sanctification does remove our sin nature, although it sticks around exterior to our being ,rather than intrinsic to our being. Again, probably something not to be argued here.
Hi Dave,
First, where did you get the idea that the answer to the fuel crisis is "embracing adamic depravity"? I neither used that language nor defended that idea.
Second, I absolutely agree that proper use of the environment is a good and proper thing. And I believe that technology will help us treat it better. However, that the world itself is in a state of sin is impossible to correct with any of our own doing outside God's intervention and, further, whatever we do will necessarily have consequences that reflect our sinful state, regardless of how effective our environmental stewardship is. I don't think it's wrong or too big a stretch to say that entirely sanctified people still leave a carbon print! :)
But a deeper issue is at stake here: Denying that the world is outside our ability to correct outside God's aid (which is what the post said)--by whatever means, and ultimately in the eschaton--isn't Wesleyan theology, it's Pelagianism.
BTW: What is this "sin nature" than is so easily reified and contrasted with my "being"? That sounds Manichean to me. It is my "being" what was corrupted and needed to be transformed. My being was in the nature of sin.
You'll have to overlook some of the grammatical errors in that posting and, while you're doing so, a spirit that seems a little harsh. Sorry if it comes across that way, Dave.
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for misunderstanding. I agree that apart from God's intervention the world cannot be restored/redeemed. Yet, I also believe that God honors our efforts to do what's right, which we are able to do by God's enabling grace both saved and unsaved alike. I would argue that as we attempt to fulfill the Genesis 1:28/2:15 mandate God empowers us and corrects the corruption through our actions. Similar to how God draws individuals unto himself through others sharing who he is with people. While some environmental concerns may be addressed before Christ's return, I think creation will never fully experience restoration from the corruption of sin till the Eschaton(this probably doesn't jive well with amillenialists). This is the view Wesley had close to his death.
As far as sin nature, I hold an Augustine view of Creation Pre-Fall (rather than Ireanus). Thereby, I argue that the sin nature is something foreign to the "being" and the presence of the sin nature in the being is a corruption of the being that has come about via the Fall. This view is a pretty traditional and Orthodox view, held by Aquinas, Leibniz, and Bonhoeffer just to list a few. Thus sanctification, beginning at salvation, is the removal of this foreign agent that was never intended to be part of our being.
Can you see sin natures floating around? Or, could you trap it in a bottle? Examine it under a microscope? This is what I would believe based on your words, "it sticks around exterior to our being ,rather than intrinsic to our being." I am completely on board with the sin nature being a corruption...but that would mean that it is not outside, but is the human nature itself, just warped.
AP: Sorry it took so long to respond, although I have to admit I'm surprised you responded on your HONEYMOON!!!
Of course we can't see our sin nature floating around and no it is not something we cant tactilely quantify. Just like we can't empirically prove we have a mind or soul.
I have to admit the existence of the old self (sin nature) is speculative. I look at verses where Paul talks about being set free from sin (Rom.6:22) and taking off the old self and putting on the new self (Eph. 4:22-24).
My best guess to how we can put off corruption of our being is of it being expelled from our being and hanging around like a parasite. Living off of any time we choose 2 act like our old self. I do need to admit that I struggle with understanding the whole old self/new self existence. What I have so far is what I have been able to work through thus far. My theology is continually developing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home