“If the case
be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total ruin,…then,
doubtless, the great salvation by Christ stands in direct relation to this
ruin, as the remedy to the disease.”
—Jonathan Edwards—
Introduction
Author
and conservative talk show host Dennis Prager stated, “No issue has a greater
influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view
human nature as basically good or not.”[1]
I
think Prager is correct. But even more important and foundational than your
social and political views, your view of human nature has important
ramifications with regard to your theology.
Perhaps second only to what you believe about God, no issue has greater
influence on determining your theological
views than whether you view human nature as basically good or not. It is no
coincidence that theological liberals who deny doctrines such as original sin
and human depravity also, more often than not, end up rejecting other scriptural
teachings such as justification by grace through faith, the necessity and
exclusivity of Jesus Christ for salvation, penal substitutionary atonement, the
biblical doctrine of hell, or just simply scratch their head and wonder
inquisitively when reading scriptural passages concerning God’s judgment on sin
(e.g., the flood, destruction of the Canaanites, etc.). They ask themselves, “Why is God mad all the time?? I don’t get
it!!”
Much
of modern secular sensibility seems attracted to the idea that human beings at
their core are basically good. In his book What
Americans Believe, George Barna of Barna Research Group found that 87% of
non-Christians agreed with the statement “People are basically good.” But this
belief in the inherent goodness of humankind isn’t peculiar to non-Christians.
It has found its way into the Church as well. In that same study, Barna also
found that 77% of self-described born-again Christians agreed with the
statement. Perhaps most shocking, of those self-described born-again Christians
who identify themselves as mainline
Protestant, 90% agreed with the statement “People are basically good.”[2]
This
was the thinking of teacher and theologian Langdon Gilkey before he became a
prisoner at a Japanese internment camp during World War II. But after spending
two-and-a-half years with 2,000 other men, women, and children, and directly
witnessing the inherent selfishness, greed, and general rudeness of his fellow
internees, he came to the exact opposite conclusion:
The camp was an
excellent place in which to observe the inner secrets of our own human
selves—especially when there were no extras to fall back on and when the thin
polish of easy morality and of just dealing was worn off…For one of the
peculiar conceits of modern optimism, a conceit which I had fully shared, is
the belief that in time of crisis the goodness of men comes forward…Nothing
indicates so clearly the fixed belief in the innate goodness of humans as does
this confidence that when the chips are down, and we are revealed for what we
‘really are,’ we will all be good to each other. Nothing could be so totally in
error.[3]
A Lesson from Calvin: Knowledge of God
and Knowledge of Self
One
of the original and most influential Protestants, John Calvin viewed the matter
of human depravity quite differently than self-described Protestants today. The
16th century Protestant Reformer is best known for his masterpiece Institutes of the Christian Religion.
What is interesting to note is the topic which Calvin chooses to begin his
entire magnum opus with: knowledge of
God and knowledge of self. He states, “Nearly all wisdom we possess, that is to
say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of
ourselves.”[4]
Calvin
argues that unless a person possesses a proper knowledge of self he will never
have a proper knowledge of God. He states, “Thus, from the feeling of our own
ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and—what is more—depravity and
corruption, we recognize that the true light of wisdom, sound virtue, full
abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in the Lord alone.”[5] Calvin goes on to say that until
we become displeased with ourselves we cannot aspire, nor would we ever be
aroused, to seek God.
Likewise,
unless an individual possesses a proper knowledge of God he can never have a
proper knowledge of self. Calvin states, “As long as we do not look beyond the
earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we
flatter ourselves most sweetly, and fancy ourselves all but demigods.”[6]
As long as we fail to see God for who He truly is, in all His majesty, we will
never recognize or scrutinize our own lowly state but rather will continue to
view ourselves in our natural fallen condition as “basically good.”
If
Calvin was right (and I think he was) this means that anyone believing in the
intrinsic moral goodness of fallen man in his naturally born, unregenerate
state has two problems: he possesses a false sense of self as well as a deficient
understanding of the holiness of God.
Calvinism vs. Arminianism: Can’t We All
Just Get Along?
Isn’t
human depravity just a Calvinistic doctrine then? No, it’s a biblical doctrine
first and foremost, and though Calvinists and Arminians have traditionally been
at opposite ends of the theological spectrum on a number of issues,
historically they have agreed on at least one point: total depravity. Total depravity of course does not mean that human
beings are as bad as they possibly could be. All people are not always
bad all of the time. Rather total
depravity means that no part of our being remains untouched and unaffected by the
corruption of sin. Sin has enslaved the total person:
It is not just
that some parts of us are sinful and others are pure. Rather, every part of our
being is affected by sin—our intellects, our emotions and desires, our hearts
(the center of our desires and decision-making processes), our goals and
motives, and even our physical bodies. Paul says, “I know that nothing good
dwells within me, that is, in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18), and, “to the corrupt and
unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted”
(Titus 1:15). Moreover, Jeremiah tells us that “the heart is deceitful above
all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). In
these passages Scripture is not denying that unbelievers can do good in human
society in some senses. But it is
denying that they can do any spiritual
good or be good in terms of a
relationship with God. Apart from the work of Christ in our lives, we are
like all other unbelievers who are “darkened in their understanding, alienated
from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their
hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18).[7]
Our
totally depraved human nature as fallen human beings leads to a total inability on our part to do any spiritual good or to please God:
Not only do we
as sinners lack any spiritual good in ourselves, but we also lack the ability
to do anything that will in itself please God and the ability to come to God in
our own strength. Paul says that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). Moreover,
in terms of bearing fruit for God’s kingdom and doing what pleases him, Jesus
says, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). In fact, unbelievers are
not pleasing to God, if for no other reason, simply because their actions do
not proceed from faith in God or from love to him, and “without faith it is
impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6). When Paul’s readers were unbelievers, he
tells them, “You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once
walked” (Eph. 2:1-2). Unbelievers are in a state of bondage or enslavement to
sin, because “every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Though
from a human standpoint people might be able to do much good, Isaiah affirms
that “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Isa. 64:6; cf. Rom.
3:9-20). Unbelievers are not even able to understand the things of God
correctly, for the “natural man does not receive the gifts [lit. ‘things’] of
the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand
them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Nor can we come to
God in our own power, for Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father
who sent me draws him” (John 6:44).[8]
This
then is the sad state of fallen humanity into which we are born: dead in
trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-2), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and
enemies of God (Rom. 5:10), darkened in understanding, excluded from the life
of God, ignorant, and hard of heart (Eph. 4:18), in bondage to sin (John 8:34),
unable to please God (Rom. 8:8), unable to accept and understand the things of
God (1 Cor. 2:14), and unable to come to God in our own power (John 6:44).
This
is the teaching of Scripture. Historically, this has also been the teaching of both Calvinists and Arminians. Total depravity forms the “T” in the TULIP acronym
often used to summarize five major tenets of Calvinistic thinking: Total
depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and
Perseverance of the Saints. That Calvinists affirm total depravity is a given.
But what is not so well known is that Jacob Arminius (after whom Arminianism is
named) agreed with the doctrine of total depravity and affirmed the bondage of
the will:
James Arminius
was emphatic in his rejection of Pelagianism, particularly with respect to the
fall of Adam. The fall leaves man in a ruined state, under the dominion of sin.
Arminius declares: “In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good
is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened [attenuatem]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], destroyed and lost. And its powers are not only
debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers
whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace…”[9]
Commenting
on this quote from Arminius, R.C. Sproul states,
The above
citation from one of Arminius’s works demonstrates how seriously he regards the
depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that man’s will was merely
wounded or weakened. He insists that it was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.”
The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger
than that of Arminius.[10]
After
further citations of Arminius regarding his view of the effects of the fall and
human depravity, Sproul summarizes the views of Arminius this way:
Arminius not
only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead
in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an
Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? Arminius then declares
that the only remedy for man’s fallen condition is the gracious operation of
God’s Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free
or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God.[11]
When
it comes to the “five points of Calvinism” then, it could be said that Jacob
Arminius was really a one-point Calvinist! But Arminius was not the only
“Arminian” to hold to total depravity and the bondage of the will. John Wesley,
the eighteenth-century revivalist after whom the Wesleyan-Arminian theological
tradition is named, also affirmed the total corruption of fallen humankind, our
bondage to sin, as well as our inability to choose the good and choose God:
I believe that
Adam, before his fall, had such freedom of the will, that he might choose
either good or evil; but that, since the fall, no child of man has a natural
power to choose anything that is truly good. Yet I know (and who does not?)
that man has still freedom of will in things of indifferent nature.[12]
Such is the
freedom of the will; free only to evil; free to “drink iniquity like water;” to
wander farther and farther from the living God, and do more “despite to the
Spirit of grace!”[13]
Wesley
scholars have acknowledged these points:
Harald Lindström:
“Wesley maintains that natural man is totally corrupt.” He is “sinful through
and through, has no knowledge of God and on power to turn to him of his own
free will.”[14]
Robert V.
Rakestraw: In Wesley’s theology “men and women are born in sin and unable in
themselves to make the least move toward God.”[15]
Colin W.
Williams: “Because of original sin, the natural man is ‘dead to God’ and unable
to move toward God or respond to him.”[16]
Leo G. Cox: “By
nature man receives nothing that is good…He is free but free only to do evil
and to follow on in the way of sin.”[17]
Thomas
Schreiner sums up Wesley’s view of the human condition this way:
The Wesleyan
analysis of the human condition does not differ fundamentally from the
Calvinistic one. Indeed, in 1745 John Wesley said that his theology was “within
a hair’s breadth” of Calvinism “(1) In ascribing all good to the free grace of
God. (2) In denying all natural free-will,
and all power antecedent to grace. And, (3) In excluding all merit from man;
even for what he has or does by the grace of God.” Wesley’s analysis of the
human condition and his bold proclamation of divine grace should warm the heart
of any evangelical Calvinist.[18]
Historically
then, what Calvinists and Arminians have disagreed on is not the utterly depraved and corrupt condition of fallen man in his
naturally born, unregenerate state. They both acknowledge that the natural man
is born in bondage to sin and can do no good apart from the grace of God. What
they disagreed on was the solution to
this problem. Calvinists argued that God’s salvific grace, which is only given
to His elect, is always irresistible and efficacious, i.e., it always
accomplishes its purpose in bringing the elect to salvation (monergism). Arminians
agreed that God’s grace is indeed prevenient, i.e., it comes before conversion,
but argued that this grace is given to all men indiscriminately such that it
overcomes the effects of the fall to the extent that humankind is now enabled
to cooperate with this grace by properly exercising their free will in choosing
to accept the offer of salvation (synergism), or else resist God’s grace and
continue in their willful rebellion.
Historically
then, the debate was not over the
fact of human depravity and the inability of man in his fallen condition to
choose the good and to choose God. Rather it was over whether or not the grace
of regeneration was resistible
(Arminianism) or irresistible
(Calvinism), whether prevenient grace was merely a necessary condition for salvation (Arminianism) or both a necessary
and sufficient condition for
salvation (Calvinism), whether God’s grace for salvation is resistibly sufficient for faith and conversion (Arminianism) or irresistibly efficient for faith and conversion (Calvinism).
To
summarize, Christians today who hold to the innate goodness of fallen,
unregenerate man do not stand squarely with Scripture. But neither do they
stand squarely in either the historic
Calvinist or Arminian tradition. The
idea that “people are basically good” simply isn’t a Christian one. For any
Christian who may deny, protest, or be hesitant to accept the teaching of
Scripture with regard to human depravity, I would simply challenge you to produce
a single verse which says anything positive regarding the spiritual condition
or spiritual ability of the “natural man” in his naturally born, unregenerate
state. As far as I know, there are none.
I’m Okay, You’re Okay, We’re All Okay: Are
People “Basically Good”?
So
where does the idea that “people are basically good” come from? Certainly not
from Scripture. As discussed above, Scripture does not paint a pretty picture
of the natural man and the current human condition.[19]
Where then does it come from?
What
about Experience?
Does
experience lend credence to the innate goodness of human beings? Perhaps some
will say, “I know a lot of good people.” More often than not I think this
confuses niceness with goodness, an idea we will develop
further below. For now I simply want to draw your attention to the daunting
task of parenting.
If
the idea that “people are basically good” is true, then the segment of our
population which should best evidence this is children. After all, if children
are born pure and innocent, inclined toward good, or perhaps as a “blank slate”
without any inclination toward good or evil, then we would only have to keep
them from immoral influences in order to guarantee or solidify their “basic
goodness.”
But
anyone who has raised children already has insight into the depravity of our
fallen human nature, and along with this reason to reject the idea that people
are basically good. As parents we do not need to teach our child how to lie or
disobey, be selfish, impatient, or self-serving. Children from a very early
age, from the very moment they are able to engage in sin, not only do engage in sin but struggle not to. Why is this? Why the
struggle if people are basically good? It seems we are struggling against our
innate immoral inclinations. If we
were born inherently good our struggle would be the exact opposite: it would be
a struggle to be selfish, impatient, rude, and self-serving. But I don’t know
anyone who wrestles with that problem. And why do we have inclinations to
engage in immoral behavior at such a young age if people are basically good? Where
did these inclinations come from? As soon as our children are old enough to
disobey and lie to us, they do. As soon as they are old enough to be selfish
and rude, they are. These things seem to come naturally to them, indeed, to all
of us.
What
we do find ourselves doing as parents is working hard to instill moral virtues
and right principles in our children. Again, why is this if people are
basically good? Perhaps it is because human beings possess a fallen nature and
are inherently selfish, prideful, and narcissistic. When things become
difficult and our present situation isn’t looking so good, our first and natural inclination is to always look out for ourselves before
others. Isn’t this true? We fight against those urges precisely because we are not innately good nor
inclined toward moral virtuosity. The inherited corruption children possess
from the womb is evidence for our sinful and fallen condition, not the idea
that people are basically good.
Some
may respond to this by arguing it is the corrupting effect of degenerate
society that is spoiling our children. This answer is problematic:
Man is born in a
state of innocence, they say, but he is subsequently corrupted by the immoral
influence of society. This idea begs the question, How did society become
corrupt in the first place? If all people are born innocent or in a state of
moral neutrality, with no predisposition to sin, why do not at least a
statistical average of 50% of the people remain innocent? Why can we find no
societies in which the prevailing influence is to virtue rather than vice? Why
does not society influence us to maintain our natural innocence? Even the most
sanguine critics of human nature, those who insist that man is basically good,
repeat the persistent axiomatic aphorism “Nobody’s perfect.” Why is no one
perfect? If man is good at the core of his heart and evil is peripheral,
tangential, or accidental, why does not the core win out over the tangent, the
substance over the accidents?[20]
To
be sure, it seems hard to make sense of the war, violence, corruption, hatred,
selfishness, narcissism, and general human wickedness in this world if you
start with the premise “people are basically good.” Again, for those who may
deny, protest, or be hesitant to accept the reality of human corruption and
depravity evidenced from human experience, I would simply challenge you to
answer these questions honestly: What would happen if the restraining effects
of law enforcement and government were suddenly removed from societies around
the world? Would we enter into a blissful state of utopia, holding hands and
singing “Kumbaya,” because people are basically good? Or would we rather see
anarchy and chaos break out on a worldwide scale as the true nature of fallen humankind
becomes unrestrained and unencumbered? Answering these questions honestly gives
us insight into the human condition. The very need for evil-restraining
entities such as law enforcement and government presupposes the depravity of
man.
What
about Evolution?
Supposing
the grand theory of Darwinian evolution is true, could it ground the fact that people are basically good? It doesn’t seem
so. How can the truth that “people are basically good” arise from a system which
purportedly produced all living things through a dog-eat-dog, survival of the
fittest process? A “survival of the fittest” mentality has more in common with
narcissism and self-preservation than it does the maxim “Love your neighbor as
yourself.” And how are altruistic virtues such as charity, self-denial, and
love derived from time, matter, mutation, and natural selection? Naturalistic
processes working on material entities cannot explain the emergence and
existence of immaterial objective moral values and principles. Some Darwinists will
argue that morality itself is the
product of evolution since “being moral” can aid in self-preservation. This
simply proves my point. Morality that is used merely as a means to the end of
preserving oneself is not truly altruistic but rather narcissistic. This should
not even qualify as a morality, nor does it lend credibility to the idea that
people are basically good.
What
about Human History?
Does
human history teach us that people are basically good? To answer this I point
you to an article by Clay Jones, We
Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer.
In this paper Jones quickly surveys only some
of the most horrendous atrocities perpetuated by human beings, and these only
within the last 100 years:
1.
Soviet Union: From 1917-89, 20 to 26 million people
were murdered for political reasons, including 6 million Ukrainians who were
starved to death.
2.
Germany: 13 million people murdered in the Holocaust,
including approximately 6 million Jews. All of this despite the fact that
Hitler was calling for the death of the Jews 20 years before his rise to power.
3.
China: Under the Chinese communists, 26 to 30 million
“counter-revolutionaries” were murdered or died in prison. Mao Tse Tung boasted
of burying 46,000 scholars alive.
4.
Japan: In December, 1937, over 300,000 Chinese were
raped, tortured, and murdered in the city of Nanking.
5.
Turkey: From 1915-23, 1.2 million Armenians were
murdered, introducing the phrase “crimes against humanity.”
6.
Cambodia: From 1975-79, under Pol Pot 2 million
Cambodians were murdered out of a population of 7 million in an effort to
return to an agrarian culture.
7.
Rwanda: In 1994, out of a population of 8 million,
800,000 people were murdered in 100 days, mostly by machete.
8.
United States: Since 1973, 50 million unborn human
beings have been murdered through abortion, largely though scalding alive with
saline solution, dismemberment, or suctioning apart piece by piece.
Reflecting
on the horrible things human beings can do to one another, we may be tempted to
say, “That’s inhuman!” On the contrary, humans
did this! This is the human condition. Apart from the grace of God, fallen
humankind is capable of horrendous evil. The evidence of human history is no
friend to the idea that people are basically good.
The
failure of the Marxist enterprise was due not only to poor economic theory but
also because it took for granted the idea that people are inherently good. For
example, Karl Marx famously said, “From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need.” This assumes the innate goodness of humankind by
supposing that individuals will work their hardest to ensure the greatest
productivity possible, i.e., it assumes the greatest producers will act
completely selfless even though the fruit of their labor will go to someone
else. It also assumes individuals will not take advantage of the system by
being lazy since regardless of their work ethic they will still receive their
“fair share.” So if man is indeed good (as the thinking goes) all that is
needed is the creation of an egalitarian society and utopia on earth would
inevitably result. But the utopian dream is a myth which will never be realized precisely because it fails to take into account
the depravity and self-interest of fallen humankind. Despite the failed
attempts and mass casualties associated with communism, many are still
attracted to this worldview. In the words of Thomas Sowell, “Socialism in
general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could
ignore or evade it.”[21]
What
about Psychology? The Stanley Milgram Experiment
What
does psychology tell us about man? Due to space restraints we will only look at
one of the most well known psychological experiments of the 20th
century, a study on obedience to authority conducted by Stanley Milgram from
1960-63:
This exploration
of obedience was initially motivated by Milgram’s reflections on the ease with
which the German people obeyed Nazi authority in discriminating against Jews
and, eventually, in allowing Hitler’s Final Solution to be enacted during the
Holocaust. As a young Jewish man, he wondered if the Holocaust could be
recreated in his own country, despite the many differences in those cultures
and historical epochs. Though many said it could never happen in the United
States, Milgram doubted whether we should be so sure.[22]
Milgram
states,
It has been
reliably established that from 1933 to 1945 millions of innocent people were
systematically slaughtered on command. Gas chambers were built, death camps
were guarded, daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same efficiency as
the manufacture of appliances. These inhumane policies may have originated in
the mind of a single person, but they could only have been carried out on a
massive scale if a very large number of people obeyed orders.[23]
The
details of Milgram’s experiment are as follows:
Two people come
to a psychology laboratory to take part in a study of memory and learning. One
of them is designated as a “teacher” and the other a “learner.” The
experimenter explains that the study is concerned with the effects of
punishment on learning. The learner is conducted into a room, seated in a chair,
his arms strapped to prevent excessive movement, and an electrode attached to
his wrist. He is told that he is to learn a list of word pairs; whenever he
makes an error, he will receive electric shocks of increasing intensity.
The real focus
of the experiment is the teacher. After watching the learner being strapped
into place, he is taken into the main experimental room and seated before an
impressive shock generator. Its main feature is a horizontal line of thirty
switches, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts, in 15-volt increments. There are
also verbal designations which range from SLIGHT SHOCK to DANGER—SEVERE
SHOCK.[24]
The teacher is told that he is to administer the learning test to the man in
the other room. When the learner responds correctly, the teacher moves on to
the next item; when the other man gives an incorrect answer, the teacher is to
give him an electric shock. He is to start at the lowest shock level (15 volts)
and to increase the level each time the man makes an error, going through 30 volts,
45 volts, and so on.
The “teacher” is
a genuinely naïve subject who has come to the laboratory to participate in an
experiment. The learner, or victim, is an actor who actually receives no shock
at all. The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in
a concrete and measureable situation in which he is ordered to inflict
increasing pain on a protesting victim.[25]
As
the voltage level on the shock generator was increased, the “victim” or
“learner” would give corresponding increasing signs of discomfort:
…the victim
indicated no discomfort until the 75-volt shock was administered, at which time
there was a little grunt…at 120 volts the victim shouted to the experimenter
that the shocks were becoming painful. Painful groans were heard on
administration of the 135-volt shock, and at 150 volts the victim cried out,
“Experimenter, get me out of here! I won’t be in the experiment any more! I
refuse to go on!” Cries of this type continue with generally rising intensity,
so that at 180 volts the victim cried out, “I can’t stand the pain,” and by 270
volts his response to the shock was definitely an agonized scream. Throughout,
from 150 volts on, he insisted that he be let out of the experiment…At 315
volts, after a violent scream, the victim reaffirmed vehemently that he was no
longer a participant. He provided no answers, but shrieked in agony whenever a
shock was administered. After 330 volts he was not heard from…[26]
Upon
reading this, one may wonder why anyone in their right mind would even comply
with administering the first shocks. Milgram states,
Would he not
simply refuse and walk out of the laboratory? But the fact is that no one ever
does...A commonly offered explanation is that those who shocked the victim at
the most severe level were monsters, the sadistic fringe of society. But if one
considers that almost two-thirds of the participants fall into the category of
“obedient” subjects, and that they represented ordinary people drawn from
working, managerial, and professional classes, the argument becomes very shaky…I
must conclude that Arendt’s conception of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth than one might dare
imagine.[27]
What
were the results of these experiments? All subjects willingly administered at
least 300 volts to the victim, while 65% of the subjects continued in the
experiment all the way to the maximum 450 volts, despite the agonizing screams
and pleas of the victim to be let free.[28]
The men and women subjects of this experiment favored no differently. Milgram
concludes,
This is,
perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply
doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can
become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the
destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to
carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality,
relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[29]
Milgram
was asked,
After the final
450 volt switch was thrown, how many of the participant-teachers spontaneously
got out of their seats and went to inquire about the condition of their
learner?” Milgram’s answer: “Not one, not ever!”[30]
This
experiment has been replicated on several occasions with similar results. David
Mantell repeated this experiment in Germany in 1970, just 30 years after the
holocaust in the very place where it occurred. He found that 85% of test subjects
were willing to deliver the highest dose of voltage of 450 volts even though
the victim was screaming, begging to be released, and complaining that their
heart hurt. Mantell states,
This experiment
becomes more incredulous and senseless the further it is carried. It
disqualifies and delegitimizes itself. It can only show how much pain one
person will impose on another…. And yet, the subjects carry on…. That is at
once the beauty and the tragedy of this experiment. It proves that the most
banal and superficial rationale is perhaps not even necessary, but surely is
enough to produce destructive behavior in human beings. We thought we had
learned this from our history books; perhaps now we have learned it in the
laboratory.[31]
Is
this inhuman? No humans do this.
The
point is this: if all it takes for the average, ordinary human being to inflict
pain and torture on another human being is a man standing in a white lab coat
saying, “The experiment requires that you continue,” then there is something desperately wrong with humankind. If nothing
else, these experiments demonstrate the ease with which human beings can find
themselves participating in evil. Clay Jones states,
Humans have an
amazing capacity for evil, and for each person who pulled the trigger or
scalded the unborn, there are family, friends, and even majority parties who
knew of the slaughter and did nothing to stop it. We cannot argue that
unusually depraved people perpetrate these evils. Difficulties may encourage
their actions, but otherwise they’re just ordinary folk—sons and daughters,
brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.[32]
Ordinary Men
In
his book Ordinary Men, Christopher
Browning follows German Reserve Police Battalion 101, chronicling their
participation in the Final Solution in Poland. This particular battalion was
responsible for shooting 38,000 Jews and transporting another 45,200 to
Treblinka for extermination.
The
title Ordinary Men is revealing.
Often when we think of the perpetrators of the Holocaust we may be tempted to
demonize and distance ourselves from such moral monsters. We reason that these
heinous individuals must have been degenerate aberrations of society,
brainwashed through propaganda and absent any moral constraint in order to
participate in such atrocities. We think to ourselves, “I could never do something like that!” That is exactly the point.
Reserve Police Battalion 101 was made up of ordinary
men. Browning states,
They were
middle-aged family men of working- and lower-middle-class background from the
city of Hamburg. Considered too old to be of use to the German army, they had
been drafted instead into the Order Police. Most were raw recruits with no
previous experience in German occupied territory.[33]
These
were middle-aged men: old enough to know what Germany was like before Hitler
came to power. They were family men: men with wives, children, and homes. They
were working men: responsible enough to provide for their families and
sufficiently well-adjusted to hold down a full-time job. They were reservists:
not professional full-time military men. And yet these ordinary men from
Reserve Police Battalion 101 were either directly or indirectly responsible for
the deaths of 83,200 Jews.
Is
this inhuman? No humans do this.
The
vast majority of genocide researches have come to the same conclusion: it is
the average members of a population that commit genocide. Even in his book,
Browning himself states, “I must recognize that in the same situation, I could
have been either a killer or an evader—both were human.”[34]
And
it is not just a few ordinary people who commit genocide, but a lot of them. It
takes a lot of regular folk like you and I who are either directly
participating or are simply not doing anything to stop it. What does this say
then about the human condition and our nature as fallen human beings? That we
are basically good? Quite the opposite.
So
what do we learn from this? If it is regular, average individuals like you and
I who willingly inflict pain and torture on other human beings as Milgram
demonstrated, if the perpetrators of genocide are just ordinary people as
Browning and other genocide researchers argue, what does this say about our own inherent nature? Are we ourselves just as fallen and corrupt?
Could I just as easily participate in
such horrendous evil? To bring the question closer to home,
If
my life had turned out differently,
if I was a German living in Germany
during World War II, apart from the grace of God, could I have been a guard at Auschwitz?
If
I answer the question honestly, I must answer “Yes.” And if you ask yourself
this question and also answer “Yes,” you are beginning to understand the depth
of human depravity.
Reflecting
on this question you may be tempted to say, “No! I could never!” If that is
your response I would challenge you with this: to answer “No” is to implicitly claim
you have been born innately superior than the millions of other ordinary people
who have either committed or condoned such evils in history. Not only is this
claim without scientific or logical foundation, but to claim you were born
innately better is the Nazi position and the mentality which fathers genocide.
After all, it was the Germans who thought they were born innately superior.[35]
Back to the Bible
In
the book of Deuteronomy, as God establishes His covenant with Israel, He lists
a number of blessings and promises for Israel which are conditioned on their
faithfulness to the covenant and to their Lord. After listing the blessings,
God warns Israel that if they disobey the Lord and fail to keep His
commandments, if they follow after false gods and engage in the practices of the
Canaanites, then they will not be blessed but cursed. They will be plagued with
sickness and disease, their enemies will lay siege to their cities, and they
will eventually be vomited out of the land. As enemies surround and lay siege
to Israel’s cities, listen to what God says concerning human nature and the
atrocious behavior even otherwise “nice” people are capable of:
The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle
that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will
begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from
her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat
them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during
the siege of your cities (Deut. 28:56-57).
It
is during times of crisis that the true nature of human beings shines forth. Here
the Lord uses the example of the sweet, innocent woman, so gentle and sensitive
she wouldn’t even dare touch the sole of her foot to the ground. This same
woman, when things aren’t going so well, when the city is laid siege and
resources are scarce, not only is this “gentle and sensitive” woman going to
eat her own children, but she’s going to be selfish about it! There are
historical records of Israelites engaging in this very behavior, and on more
than one occasion. Josephus gives us one account from the Roman siege and
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD:
There was one Mary, the daughter of Eleazar, illustrious for her family
and riches. She having been stripped and plundered of all her substance and
provisions by the soldiers, out of necessity and fury killed her own suckling
child, and having boiled him, devoured half of him, and covering up the rest
preserved it for another time. The soldiers soon came, allured by the smell of
victuals, and threatened to kill her immediately, if she would not produce what
she had dressed. But she replied that she had reserved a good part for them,
and uncovered the relics of her son. Dread and astonishment seized them, and
they stood stupefied at the sight.[36]
Is
this inhuman? No humans do this.
You
see? If all of this is true, if human beings really are this corrupt, wicked, desperate,
and depraved apart from the grace of God, then what Paul says about the human
condition in Romans 3 starts to make a lot more sense:
There is none righteous,
not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they
have become useless; there is none
who does good, there is not even one.
Their throat is an open grave…whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
their feet are swift to shed blood…there is no fear of God before their eyes
(Rom. 3:10-18).
How
could Paul have been any clearer?
The Root of the Problem: Original Sin
“I’m
basically a good person. My good deeds outweigh my bad.”
This
is the most common answer I have heard from non-Christians in response to the
question, “Why should God allow you into heaven?”
This
answer, including the presumption behind it, actually has its root in original
sin.
After
Adam and Eve rebelled against God and brought sin into the world, they
experienced for the first time both guilt and shame. Because of their guilt
they attempted to hide from God, and due to their shame they attempted to cover
themselves through their own effort. This first sin had devastating effects,
not only for Adam and Eve but also for all of their posterity. Once Adam and
Eve became corrupt all they could produce was corruption, i.e., they couldn’t produce
anything better than themselves. And so Adam and Eve gave birth to corrupt
human beings, who gave birth to corrupt human beings, who gave birth to corrupt
human beings, who eventually gave birth to you and me. In that sense, each one
of us is born into this world as a little fallen Adam and Eve. And like Adam
and Eve, fallen humankind today attempts to hide and cover from God. But rather
than sew fig leaves together, one of the most prevalent ways we attempt to
cover our moral shame and guilt is by appealing to our own moral “goodness.”
That is, we point to our “basic human goodness” and “good deeds” in an attempt
to justify ourselves before God. Often this even becomes a rationalization as
to why we don’t need God, e.g., “Why do I need God? I’m living a good enough
life on my own.”
Ironically
then, these “good deeds” performed by fallen human beings, when appealed to as
evidence of one’s own goodness or as an excuse to ignore the need for God, are
a testimony not to moral virtue and
meritorious character but rather to a continued
state of rebellion against God. It is an attempt to cover one’s own guilt
and shame by the power of the flesh, i.e., our own hard work and self-effort,
just as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. This is moralism, the attempt
to fix and perfect oneself in the power of self, and it is antithetical to the
gospel of grace.
This
is an important point to grasp. What I am saying is that man’s charade of “good
deeds” is in reality often self-serving, and therefore not “good” at all. They
allow unregenerate men and women to continue to hide and cover from God,
suppressing the truth of their need for Him, while at the same time allowing
them to point to their works and say, “You see? Look at all the good things
I’ve done. I’m a good person.”
Responding to the “I’m basically Good”
Fallacy
How
then should we respond to those who reject the gospel of grace and attempt to
hide and cover from God through their own good works and self-effort? At least
three things can be said.
First,
everyone thinks they are “basically good.”
If
there is one thing I have learned while working in law enforcement, it is that
most everyone thinks they are “basically good,” murderers, rapists, and child
molesters included. Inmates convicted of horrendous crimes still manage to find
a way to justify themselves in the sight of God and man:
Sure officer, I
made a mistake, who hasn’t? Maybe what I did could even be considered “wrong”
(whatever that misused and misunderstood word means). But you know what? I’ve
done a lot of good things too. I’m basically a good person.
Often
when people say “I’m basically good” what they have in mind is comparing
themselves with other people. They might say something like,
Well, I’ve done
some bad things, but I’m not like that
guy over there. Look at what he does. All in all, I think I’m pretty good.
Even
among convicted criminals there is a “code among thieves,” a list of do’s and
don’ts, even a moral hierarchicalism by which certain actions are judged more
heinous than others and by which a rationalization of one’s own actions becomes
possible. The petty thief points to the drug abuser and says, “I’m not like
him, I’m basically good.” The drug abuser points to the kidnapper and says,
“I’m not like him, I’m basically good.” The kidnapper points to the murderer
and says, “I’m not like him, I’m basically good.” The murderer points to the
child molester and says, “I’m not like him, I’m basically good.”
It
isn’t criminals alone who are plagued by this mentality. It is the average
law-abiding citizen as well. And in my experience, this type of moralism even
impacts police officers, often at an even deeper level. In fact, I think
moralism in general is more perceptible (and can be a greater danger) among
those who work in the criminal justice system due to the simple fact that we
are confronted with a corrupt aspect of society every day that others only see
on TV. In the face of daily evil it is easy for individuals involved in
criminal justice to retreat to the state of mind which says,
Look at that guy
over there. Look at his charges. Look at what he’s been convicted of. I’m not
like him, that’s for sure. I could never
do something like that. I work to stop bad people from doing bad things, after
all. I’m one of the good guys. I’m basically a good person.
Moralism
can be one of the greatest obstacles to the gospel.
The
problem with all of these comparisons is that they do not take into account the
universal corruption of sin that affects all of humankind. If fallen,
unregenerate human beings are your standard of comparison, it’s easy to come to
the conclusion that you are “basically good.” All you need to do is find
someone a little bit worse off than you! Comparing one depraved human being
with another depraved human being will always produce this result. This type of
comparison has the wrong reference point. It is the same Pharisaical attitude
that says “I’m better than him” and which was condemned by Jesus in the parable
of the Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:9-14).
Jesus
is our correct reference point, and Jesus said quite plainly, “No one is good
except God alone” (Luke 18:19). Paul says, “For all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and “There is none righteous, not even one”
(Rom. 3:10). In other words, there is none who are “basically good.” Basically
good compared to whom? Certainly not God; and it is God who we will stand
before on Judgment Day, not fallen unregenerate man.
Second,
niceness isn’t goodness.
Okay,
so everyone thinks they’re basically good, and no one lives up to God’s
standard of holiness. But there are a lot of nice people. What about them?
In
short, niceness is not goodness and being nice is easy much of the time. Jesus
Himself said,
If you love
those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who
love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that
to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect
repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting
to be repaid in full (Luke 6:32-34).
In
other words, these sorts of acts simply reflect the normal human niceness we
see in most every area of society. C.S. Lewis stated, “Everyone feels
benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment.”[37]
Isn’t this true? It is easy to be nice when there is money in the bank, food on
the table, and sunshine on your face. We often see the true nature of fallen humankind
emerge when things aren’t going so well. When the chips are down and times are
tough, the “basic goodness” of humankind, more often than not, quickly
vanishes.
Again,
does this mean that fallen human beings are as bad as they possibly could be,
or that they can do no good in any sense?
No. Thomas Schreiner states,
Do unregenerate
human beings always sin? Is there not some good in their lives? We are not
saying that they are as evil as they can possibly be. Jesus says, “…you then,
though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children” (Luke
11:13). If people were as evil as they possibly could be, they would not desire
to give good things to their children. They would presumably find ways to
inflict only evil upon their children. Unbelieving parents often love their
children and their friends (cf. Matt. 5:46-47). They also may do much that is
good for society. It should be noted that Jesus still says that they are evil.
Evil people still give good gifts to their children and do kind things for
other people.[38]
Evil
human beings still do nice things for one another. This doesn’t mean they
aren’t evil nor does it mean they aren’t slaves to sin. This is because sin is
not merely outward action or inaction which fails to conform to God’s law but
an attitude which fails to acknowledge God and give Him His proper glory. Schreiner
explains:
Romans 1:21-25
clarifies that the heart of sin is failing to glorify God as God. The heart of
sin is a belittling of God and a scorning of his glory, which involves a
failure to glorify and thank him (Rom. 1:21)…Sinners do not give God the
supreme place in their lives…people “served created things rather than the
Creator” (Rom. 1:25). Sin is not first and foremost the practice of evil deeds
but an attitude that gives glory to something other than God. People may be
loving to their children and kind to their neighbors and never give a thought
to God. The essence of sin is self-worship rather than God-worship…Such a
conception of sin helps us understand how people can perform actions that
externally conform with righteousness yet remain slaves of sin. These actions
are not motivated by a desire to honor and glorify God as God…Actions that
externally conform with righteousness may still be sin, in that they are not
done for God’s glory and by faith…Slavery to sin does not mean that people
always engage in reprehensible behavior. It means that the unregenerate never
desire to bring glory to God, but are passionately committed to upholding their
own glory and honor.[39]
True
moral goodness then isn’t merely being “nice.” True moral goodness is much
closer to the teaching “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44) which no fallen human
being can do apart from God’s grace. Again, Jesus said quite plainly, “No one
is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19). Niceness isn’t goodness, and we need to
know the difference.
Third,
goodness isn’t even the issue. Badness is.
When
someone says, “I’m basically a good person, my good deeds outweigh my bad,”
they are assuming at least two things. First, they are assuming they have done
more good than bad. Considering that we are guilty of numerous sins every day
in thought, word, and deed, I don’t think this is true of anyone. Second, they
are assuming that doing good works somehow counteracts all the bad things
they’ve done. This line of thinking doesn’t seem to properly take into account
the concepts of law and justice.
To
illustrate this,[40]
imagine you are pulled over for running a red light. In an attempt to avoid a
ticket, you explain to the officer, “Sir, you don’t understand. You see, before
I ran that red light, I stopped legally for 100 red lights. And after you let
me go here, I am planning on stopping legally for another 100 red lights. You
see? My legal stops outweigh my illegal failures to stop. I’m basically a good
driver. Therefore, I don’t deserve this ticket.”
Or
what about the murderer who appears before a judge and says, “Your honor, I
confess. I murdered that man. But you don’t understand. I let hundreds of other people live! You see
your honor? My good deeds outweigh my bad. I’m basically a good person! Therefore,
you should allow me to go free.”
We
intuitively sense there is something wrong with the excuses and rationale
offered by the guilty parties. So what’s the problem? It’s this:
You
cannot make up for breaking the law by keeping the law; keeping the law is what
you are supposed to do.
In
other words, you don’t get a check in the mail or a get out of jail free card
for being a law-abiding citizen. That is the standard you are held to! The
issue is not that we keep the law
most of the time. The problem is that we break it on occasion! And when we do,
we deserve to face the consequences of our actions.
The
same goes for God’s law. Goodness is not the issue; badness is. The issue is not that we do what we are supposed to
on occasion, the issue is that we have broken God’s law many times over and stand as condemned sinners before Him who
deserve to be punished. We cannot make up for breaking God’s law by keeping His
law, keeping God’s law is what we are
supposed to do. And justice requires that we be punished when we don’t.
This,
my friends, is why salvation must be
by grace, and why any works-oriented salvific system is doomed to failure:
For by grace you
have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
You
can’t make up for breaking the law by keeping the law. Keeping the law is what
you are supposed to do. And when we appear before God on Judgment Day, the
appropriate attitude before the most holy, most perfect, most wise, most just
Creator and Savior will not be,
Well, you see
God, you don’t understand. Let me tell you how this works. Check it out: my
good deeds outweigh my bad. I’m basically a good person.
I
imagine God would look at us the same way the judge might look at the murderer
who said, “Yeah, but I let hundreds of other people live!” and would
appropriately respond, “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt.
7:23). When we do what is commanded of us, our only response should be “we are
unworthy servants, we have only done our duty” (Luke 17:10). Our attitude should be one of humility,
reverence, and gratitude, one which says, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner”
(Luke 18:13):
He saved us, not
on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His
mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Titus
3:5).
Acknowledging
that we as human beings are not
basically good not only frees us from the grip of moralism but allows us to
fully embrace and appreciate the gospel of grace. It also has tremendous
implications for the problem of evil.
Human Depravity and the Problem of Evil
Human
beings apart from the grace of God are capable of horrendous evils. A
discussion of human depravity in relation to the problem of evil is absolutely
necessary because the most frequently asked question concerning the problem of
evil is this: “Why do bad things
happen to good people?” This is
sometimes referred to as the emotional problem of evil.
To
put it succinctly, the question “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is
based on the false assumption that people are “good.” Given the reality of
human depravity the problem with this question should become immediately
apparent. Man is not innately good:
The terrible
human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in his state of
spiritual alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at the moral evil
in the world; on the contrary, he expects
it. The Scriptures indicate that God has given mankind up to the sin it has
freely chosen; He doesn’t interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its
course (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral
responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness
and moral cleansing.[41]
So
the question is not “Why do bad
things happen to good people?” but
rather “Why do bad things happen to bad people?” But nobody ever asks that
question. Perhaps the question we should be asking is this: “Why do good things happen to bad people?” Why has God out of His
mercy chosen to dispense any goodness at all on willful rebellious sinners?
Christian
apologists need to take the consequences of sin and reality of human depravity
seriously when addressing the problem of evil. Many Christians simply pay lip
service to what the Bible has to say about these topics. It’s no wonder then we
are often at a loss for words when someone asks, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” A completely biblical,
though partial, rejoinder is this: no one is good but God alone! Bad things
don’t happen to good people because no one is good. Jesus raised no qualms
about our naturally born status as sinners before God, the universal corruption
and guilt of humankind, or our need for repentance. He introduced these very
issues Himself in addressing the problem of evil. He took it for granted that
the wages of sin is death (Luke 13:1-5). Christian apologists should do
likewise (For more on this, see Why
the Problem of Evil is a Problem).
When
addressing the problem of evil, Christian apologists also need to present a
theodicy which minimally includes the
biblical teaching of original sin and human depravity. G.K. Chesterton referred
to original sin as “the only part of Christian theology which can really be
proved.”[42]
And why God allows evil won’t make sense unless we have the problem of sin
clearly before us:
The subject of sin is vital knowledge…If you have not learned about sin,
you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in,
or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the
Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin
and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the
point of what it says.[43]
The
same is true for the problem of evil. The subject of sin is essential because
in raising the problem of evil, the skeptic must put forth an anthropodicy
(justification of man) by arguing that man is “basically good” and God is
unjust for allowing the suffering and evil He does. In response, the theist
must show these assumptions to be false, and in their place put forth a
theodicy (justification of God) which includes evidencing the depths of human
depravity and arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing
evil. Until we clearly articulate and defend the gravity of sin, as well as the
universal corruption and guilt of humankind, many of our answers to the problem
of evil will largely remain unpersuasive.
Skeptics,
however, are often inconsistent when it comes to the nature of man and the
problem of evil. They want to hold to the basic “goodness” of man and at the
same time complain about the evil, pain, and suffering which man perpetuates,
all the while blaming God for allowing it:
On the one hand,
skeptics argue that bad things shouldn’t happen to good people and that the
human race consists mainly of good people. On the other hand, their very
objections concern the bad things people do to one another: murder, war, rape,
child abuse, brutality, kidnapping, bullying, ridiculing, shaming, corporate
greed, unwillingness to share wealth or to care for the environment…The longer
the list of evil things done, the more it demonstrates the truth of what the
Bible says: by nature, human beings are evil, not good. This undercuts the
original argument—that humans are good, and therefore it’s utterly unjust for
bad things to happen to them. Since the same human race that commits these
evils also suffers from them—since we are not only victims, but perpetrators,
of sin—what would God’s critics have Him do? Would they insist he strike us all
down immediately for our evil? Or would they have him remove human choice in
order to protect us from one another? They might as well say that since we are
so good, God shouldn’t allow us to be so bad.[44]
Conclusion: The Doctrine of Human
Depravity Matters
How
does a knowledge and understanding of the depths of human evil help us? In
addition to largely answering the emotional problem of evil as discussed above,
the following points prove insightful:[45]
First, it reveals we have gotten the
problem of evil exactly backward:
There is a
problem of evil alright. But it isn’t God’s problem—He is only good and doesn’t
do any evil. It’s humankind’s problem because we are the ones who do evil. As
C. S. Lewis put it, “The Christian answer—that we have used our free will to
become very bad—is so well known that it hardly needs to be stated. But to
bring this doctrine into real life in the minds of modern men, and even modern
Christians, is very hard.” Indeed. And a Christian won’t understand why God
allows evil unless he or she thinks these things through.[46]
Second, it demonstrates God’s patience
and justifies God’s judgment. If you think that people are basically good you
will often be tempted to ask, “Why is God angry all the time?” when reading
passages in scripture relating to God’s judgment (e.g., the flood, destruction of
the Canaanites, etc.). When you begin to fully grasp the depth of human
depravity, sinfulness and corruption, you instead will say, “Wow, God is really
patient. Why isn’t He judging people sooner?” C.S. Lewis stated, “When we
merely say that we are bad, the
‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from
God’s goodness.”[47]
Third, it magnifies the significance
of Christ’s sacrifice. Jesus didn’t suffer a brutal, agonizing, torturous death
on the cross because you’re basically a good person. If you were good enough to
earn salvation on your own, then “Christ died for nothing” (Gal. 2:21):
We may feel
tempted to underestimate the horrors of the Cross, because to recognize them is
to admit that our monstrous evil demanded a price so horrific. To make light of
our sin is to make light of Christ’s cross.[48]
Charles Spurgeon stated, “Too many think
lightly of sin, and therefore think lightly of the Saviour.”[49]
Fourth, it impassions are witness. If
you think that people are basically good, it will be hard for you to tell them
they are corrupt sinners in need of salvation.
Fifth, it increases our desire for the
Jesus’ return. When we watch television and see examples of some of the horrendous
evil and suffering that takes place around the world, we often cry out, “Come
quickly, Lord Jesus.”
Finally, it reveals the
greatness of our salvation. After all, if you think that you are basically a
good person, your salvation doesn’t seem so grand:
We must
contemplate men in sin, until we are horrified, until we are alarmed, until we
are desperate about them, until we pray for them, until having realized the
marvel of our own deliverance from that terrible state, we are lost in a sense
of wonder, love, and praise.[50]
The
good news just isn’t so good unless we have the bad news clearly before us. “Again,
it is certain,” Calvin stated, “that man never achieves a clear knowledge of
himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from
contemplating him to scrutinize himself.”[51]
[1]
Dennis Prager, “If You Believe that People are Basically Good” Townhall.com (December 2002), http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2002/12/31/if_you_believe_that_people_are_basically_good
(accessed December 12, 2009).
[2]
George Barna, What Americans Believe
(Ventura: Regal, 1991), 89-91.
[3]
Langdon Gilkey, Shantung Compound: The
Story of Men and Women Under Pressure (New York: HarperOne, 1966), 92.
[4]
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, Vol. 1, ed. by John T.
McNeil, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (London: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 35.
[5]
Ibid., 37
[6]
Ibid., 38.
[7]
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 497.
[8]
Ibid., 497-498.
[9]
R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The
Controversy Over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 125.
[10]
Ibid., 126.
[11]
Ibid., 128.
[12]The Works of John Wesley, ed. T.
Jackson, 14 vols. (1831; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 10:350, hereafter
designated as Works, quoted in Thomas
R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in
Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds., Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge,
and Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 232, hereafter designated as
Schreiner.
[13]
Works, 5:104, quoted in Schreiner,
233.
[14]
Harald Lindström, Wesley and
Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation (London: Epworth,
1950), 45, quoted in Schreiner, 233.
[15]
Robert V. Rakestraw, “John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace,” JETS 27 (1984): 196, quoted in
Schreiner, 233.
[16]
Colin W. Williams, John Wesley’s Theology
Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), 41, quoted in Schreiner, 233.
[17]
Leo G. Cox, “Prevenient Grace—A Wesleyan View,” JETS 12 (1969): 147, quoted in Schreiner, 233.
[18]
Schreiner, 233.
[19]
See Gen. 6:5, 8:21; 1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 14:1-3, 51:5, 130:3, 143:2; Ecc. 7:20;
Isa. 53:6; Jer. 17:9; Matt. 15:18-19; Mark 7:21-23; Luke 18:19; John 8:34; Acts
26:18; Rom. 1:18-32, 3:10-18, 3:23, 7:5, 7:18 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 1:18, 2:14; Eph.
2:1-3, 4:17-19; Gal. 3:22; 2 Tim. 2:25-26, 3:2-5; Titus 1:15; 1 John 5:19.
[20]
Sproul, Willing to Believe, 148-149.
[21]
Thomas Sowell, The Thomas Sowell Reader
(New York: Basic Books, 2011), 144.
[22]
Philip Zambardo, foreward to Obedience to
Authority: An Experimental View, by Stanley Milgram (New York: Harper
Perennial, 2009), xiii.
[23]
Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1.
[24]
“Two switches after this last designation were simply marked XXX.” Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 20.
[25]
Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 3-4.
[26]
Ibid., 23.
[27]
Ibid., 5-6.
[28]
Ibid., 33-35.
[29]
Ibid., 6.
[30]
Zimbardo, foreward to Obedience to Authority,
xv.
[31]
David Mark Mantell, “The Potential for Violence in Germany” Journal of
Social Issues 27, vol. 4, 111, quoted in Clay Jones, “We Don’t Take Human
Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer,” 2011, 9-10, available at http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Human-Evil-and-Suffering.pdf,
hereafter designated as Jones.
[32]
Jones, 10.
[33]
Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men:
Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (New York,
HarperCollins, 1992), 1.
[34]
Browning, Ordinary Men, xx.
[35]
Jones, 10-11.
[36]
Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the
Prophecies, Which Have Remarkably Been Fulfilled, and at this Time are
Fulfilling in the World (London: J.F. Dove, 1754), 345-346, quoted in Gary
DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of
the Modern Church (Powder Springs: American Vision, 1999), 112-113.
[37]
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New
York: HarperCollins, 1996), 49.
[38]
Schreiner, 231.
[39]
Schreiner, 231-232.
[40]
Thanks to Kevin Lewis for these illustrations.
[41]
William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending
Your Faith with Reason and Persuasion (Colorado Springs: David Cook, 2010),
166.
[42]
G.K. Chersterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago:
Moody, 2009), 28.
[43]
J.I. Packer, quoted in C.J. Mahaney and Robin Boisvert, How Can I Change? (Gaithersburg, MD: Sovereign Grace Ministries,
1996), 41.
[44]
Randy Alcorn, If God is Good: Faith in
the Midst of Suffering and Evil (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2009), 72-73.
[45]
Thanks to Dr. Clay Jones for these points and commentary.
[46]
Jones, 14.
[47]
Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 48.
[48]
Alcorn, If God is Good, 66.
[49]
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The
Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 1899), 76,
quoted in Alcorn, If God is Good, 79.
[50]
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in Ephesians Chapter 2 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1972), 12.
[51]
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, 37.
No comments:
Post a Comment