The most common perspective today is that people are basically good. Sure, there's some bad ones, but, in general, we start out good.
There is a problem with that position. If humans are born good, why does no one end up good? Okay, that's one problem. The fact is that the Bible contradicts it.
In the Psalms David wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). Now, I don't know about you, but it looks like David is saying that the wicked are wicked from birth. I mean, I'm not trying to read things into this; it just appears to be what it says. Elsewhere David wrote, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). David is saying he was born in iniquity and had a sin nature at conception. And God said, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21).
It is not possible to believe these Scriptures as they are written and assume "People are basically good." Either the Scriptures are wrong or the premise about people being good is wrong. Now, mind you, the texts don't argue that children are born as sinners. They are born with a sin nature. Sin isn't being born or even being human. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), replacing God as Lord with my own lordship. The fact that "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23) suggests that all have the same original nature, that "Natural Man" is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1), inclined only to evil (Gen 6:5), incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), and more. We do not pay a penalty for a sin nature, but we do pay a penalty for sin, and we sin because it is in our nature. Simply put, a universal result ("all have sinned") requires a universal cause. As such, arguing that people are basically good denies the fact that all have sinned and minimizes sin itself.
I don't think we get it. I don't think we recognize the magnitude of God in all His glory (Rom 3:23; Isa 6:3; Psa 36:1; Rom 3:18). We've minimized Him either in presence or in essence; either He's not really here or He's not really what He has revealed about Himself. I don't think we realize the depth of our sin problem. We're "basically good" and Paul is thoroughly wrong when he claims that "there is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12). Having diminished God and improved our own condition, we surely cannot grasp how big our sin problem is. That's why we're shocked at the concept of Hell and outraged at the notion that God might judge us and lacking in the gratitude and love that the forgiveness of great sin produces.
Jesus indicated that the person who is forgiven much would love much (Luke 7:47). I believe He meant both Himself and others. We who are forgiven much are grateful to Him and more tolerant of others. (FYI, that was "tolerant" in the dictionary sense, not the common misuse.) We who are forgiven much see His grace and mercy and sacrifice as far more precious. We who are forgiven much don't have any misconceptions about how good we are. Some won't like it much, but I suspect it is a more biblical view as well as a more deeply satisfying experience with God.
5 comments:
I honestly can't understand how any rational person can look at humanity and argue that humans are "basically good" with a straight face.
Likewise, when people argue that children are born "sinless" and argue that it is theoretically possible for someone to live a life free from sin, it boggles my mind.
Is it correct to say that you would argue that infants who die are not judged by the same standard as adults?
I'm not at all convinced that babies who die without ever having made a moral choice (a choice where they know good and bad and choose the bad) would be judged by the same standard as those who do. Fortunately, since it's not my job to pass judgment on either, I can leave that in the hands of the Judge that always does right.
I thought that you would probably answer that way, but wanted to check.
I've never understood the argument that people are basically good. One glance and you'll see that people are deeply selfish and only do good, like obey the law or do something nice for someone else, to avoid unpleasant circumstances. If people were basically good, speeding wouldn't be the norm (because a good person would obey the law even when the cops aren't around). And don't even look at children. They are born selfish and must be clearly and repeatedly taught to not be selfish all the time.
Unless, like is the situation often these days, they mean something different by good than we do.
I have a theory. I suspect that when people argue in favor of the basic goodness of humanity they are starting from two premises that aren’t necessarily true.
1. They start by thinking “I’m pretty much a good person and everyone I know is too.”. This leads to extrapolating a subjective feeling out to encompass all of humanity.
2. They define good based on their subjective feelings about what they think is good.
Of course those starting points lead to certain assumptions, the problem is that it can’t be proven.
Post a Comment