That said, i do agree with his main point that we are fallen creatures. Just by looking at some of things that we do to each other, we can find this to be obvious. I don't particularly agree with Plantinga's distinction between sin and evil. Plantinga claims that evil is anything that disturbs shalom while sin is evil that is intentional. I think that, at least in the way that most people use these words, both evil and sin imply some kind of intent behind it. I have never heard anyone say that something is evil but not a sin. In reality, I think that this distinction is simply a dispute over definition and doesn't have much of an impact on what I think about sin.
Another issue that I found in this chapter was that of total depravity. In class, we had a big debate over whether humans are completely incapable of doing any good. Plantinga kind of takes both sides in this debate. My opinion is that we can't be completely depraved because of our moral code that Lewis talks about in Mere Christianity. I think that our ability to tell right from wrong is evidence of the good that we were original created with. Our actions are still tainted with sin in all areas of our life, but I don't think that total depravity means that we are 100% evil.
Ah, the ancient debate of total depravity and good. There's a lot of interesting ways to interpret it, but I have always found that "total depravity" never necessarily meant we aren't capable of good, but rather that we always have the other choice. Perhaps I'm doctrinally wrong in this area, but it makes quite a bit of sense to me, and I'd have to do some exploring otherwise. I think the moral code, however, cannot redeem us as "good" creatures, not in the slightest. Like I said; the choice to ignore the moral code is what makes us depraved.
ReplyDelete