"Do Babies Demonstrate Sinfulness? ...And what about Calvinism?" A conversation with a friend
Hey David!
So after our conversation I've been reading and thinking, go figure. So
you don't believe in human depravity?
I have always been under the impression that we are not good at the
core. Experience has seem to show me that too. Also if my first thoughts were
broadcasted out loud I would be quite ashamed.
What do you make of this video?
I'm really trying to look at this thing clearly. :)
Check out this video on YouTube:
Friend
Hi Friend,
This video is confused on
several levels.
1. It assumes morality throughout; it
doesn’t demonstrate origins. For example, it labels “being nice” as moral. That
assumes a Moral Law. In no way does the experiment of a child picking a toy
suggest that the kid understands or is attempting to be moral. We simply have
no idea if a child understands morality based on observation. It is the same
with the higher primates. We can only observe; we cannot know if they perceive
of the Moral Law. The only possible way to know is to communicate with them. They
would have to tell us that they feel an intuitive sense of “ought.” And…that
they feel guilt when they didn’t do the “right” thing.
2. Picking a toy that slams down the box is
associated with violence, not necessarily “being bad/immoral.” As creatures, we
will stay away from that which causes violence/damage naturally, since our
brains are wired to survive (unless the Moral Law tells us we “ought” to face
that violent thing for some greater good).
3. The video and study seems to be arguing
for the “origin of morality.” It does no such thing. Instead, at the very most,
it would demonstrate how early humans can perceive of morality. By analogy, if
tests were done that tested the “origin of math,” and showed how babies can
gather things together in groups, it would in no way demonstrate when math
begins. It would only demonstrate, at most, when babies can begin apprehending
mathematics. In morality, this is called “moral epistemology,” which is the
study of how people come to know or apprehend morality. So, the study should
have been called, “A study of moral epistemology.”
4. As far as my view of depravity goes, I
think I hold the NT’s view (even though that term is never used in the Bible,
depending on how you translate ἀδόκιμον
in Rom 1:28): that all
humans are in a state of sinfulness, unable to fulfill perfectly the obligatory
commands to love God and neighbor on their own free will. Humans do not want to
perform these commands perfectly on their own. Thus, because of this inability,
humans do not fulfill the purposes for which they were designed. They need
divine aid to perform this task. Because of Jesus’s teachings, death,
resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit, humans who receive His
Spirit are now able to perform those tasks, thus fulfilling their original
design.
Where I disagree with most/all
people I’ve heard who speak about depravity is this: they suggest that sin
affects every area of a human person
(i.e., to them, “total” = “affecting all areas”; but to me, “total” = “affecting
my entire moral self”). I don’t find their view compelling based on anything
taught in the Bible or found in Christian philosophical reflection. For
example, I don’t think sin affects anything that is amoral (e.g., mathematics, art, scientific discovery, language
arts; and all basic decisions involved in life that are not moral, such as
whether I choose red or blue, eat fish or eggs, etc.).
The real issue is whether or
not, in my free will, I am able to
respond to the gospel positively. On that issue, I am ambivalent. There are
texts that suggest I can’t. There are texts that suggest I can. What I don’t
find compelling is any suggestion that God forces me to love him (e.g.,
Calvinism) or that God frees me to love him preveniently (e.g., Wesleyanism).
These are attempts to “fill in the gap” between my sinfulness and my response
to the Gospel. (There’s more here, but I’m out of time.)
That’s what I think, at
least!!
David
Hey David,
Yeah good points on the video.
I see that selfishness, bias, greed etc. seem like they aren't taught,
we lean towards that as kids (like in the video they showed in older kids, but
as the kids got older they began to be less selfish) and we have to be taught
to do the opposite, be giving, think of others first, put anything above
ourselves even God.(pride) Our first inclination is "me first" and
herein I see the place where man breaks the first commandment. Nothing should
go before God or try to take the place of and yet in man's nature it's our
tendency.
About Calvinism( I'm not arguing for it only trying to understand) I
never was under the impression that God ever forced himself on anyone, free
will still stands. Because like you said, we don't have the capacity in our own
free will to live up to the standard, God has to intervene so that we can. It
seems clear to me that in our fleshy state we are dead and when God intervenes
we are changed.
This goes back to my questions that you did the blog on about desiring
God. If a person is changed we should see change at least happening. Can anyone
really know the things of God or want to know the things of God without first
him imparting revelation? And who ultimately gets all the glory? Me, partially
because I came to my senses and decided to believe?
To what degree is God sovereign and is God really providential?
This is tough stuff and I can see why people argued over for centuries.
My brain is tired and it's still morning. Ha!
Thanks for taking the time to share. I'm picking your brain cause after
all you are a doctor. :)
Friend
Hi Friend,
Yeah, I’ve not made up my mind
yet on whether or not you can determine the moral awareness of children by observing their behavior. The reason is: every psychologist I
know would say that kids not wanting other people to take their toys, etc., is
perfectly healthy because they’re learning ownership. I’m not suggesting they
are necessarily right in their assessment, but it does make sense to me that
it’s part of our natural development. Then, as we age, we learn that we can
have ownership and not lose the toy. And, we learn that always playing with our
“own” toys is selfish.
So, I’m kinda’ in between
those two views. Can you elucidate that for me?
Good point about Calvinism
concerning the definition of “free will.” I think most Calvinists would say we
have a free will, but it’s corrupted. That is, we freely want to sin. But, I
don’t know if that’s the consensus view--or if there is one! But, on that
understanding, I was thinking that in their view, God “takes over” their
“corrupted free will” and regenerates it and changes their desires to God. In
fact, I think they’d say, God absolutely must take over their will because they
are totally depraved. They can't even “will” the right thing. If this is true,
I think “forcing Himself” on a sinful, corrupt person is the right phrase. I
might be wrong about that, of course. And when people ask, “Why those people?” They say, “It’s just
grace. God in His infinite wisdom has chosen certain people to love Him.”
As far as “who gets the
glory,” that’s another good point. Again, as usual!, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this isn’t part of the discussion in who “gets the glory in
saving” (if that's what you mean). It seems to me, by analogy: Imagine I were
dangling off a cliff, completely unable to pull myself up, and you reached down
to grab my hand. You initiated the saving effort; you let me know that you were
there; you did this just because you're awesome--especially if you and I were
enemies! But…I have to choose to let go of the rock to grab your hand. You pull
me up (= "save me”). It just doesn’t seem to me that at any time after
that event anyone would every think to say, “Wow! It's incredible that David
kinda’ saved himself….I mean, when you look at it, he was instrumental in this
whole thing.”
Of course, Calvinists would
alter one aspect of my analogy: David couldn’t even choose to let go of the
rock! You would have to grab my hand without me ever wanting it at all or,
perhaps you would “talk me into it and change my whole desire to be saved.”
Whatever. It just seems to me
that, even in my original analogy, you would clearly receive all the credit for
saving me…the “glory.” Could I be happy that I made the choice? Sure! Why not?
I’m extremely happy every single time I make a right choice in life! My in-laws
gave us a generous cash gift for Christmas. I accepted the check. I didn't earn
it. I didn't ask for it. I didn't know it was coming. But I took that junk to
the bank! And I'm so glad that I decided to keep the check. Simultaneously, it
would never occur to me to praise myself for receiving the cash--it was a grace
gift!
Of course, I completely
appreciate the desire to be clear that my "saving process” is not based on
my earning some “merit” that God needed to recognize. I just don’t think it
needs to go as far as they do, based on the biblical texts and on philosophical
reflection. Of course, I could be wrong!
Concerning the “sovereignty,”
great question. I’ll guess I chat more in person. lol
Let me know what you think if
you want to…especially where I'm wrong!
Peace,
DP
David,
One other thought on the kids morality -- "Train up a child in the
way he should go" why train him in any way at all? Why not let him make
his own choices?
I've seen over and over with family friends society that without
guidance and training when developing they more often than not get themselves
into a heap of trouble. So why would that be? Is it because they need to be
trained taught to not give into those natural tendencies of self first.
And I see it that anytime we put self first in general we are taking
Gods proper place.
Good mind strengthening gong on. :)
Friend
Hi Friend,
Great stuff.
I certainly do think we should teach morality to our
children. I think morality can be taught just as mathematics can be taught.
Children can discover math on their own and they can discover morality on their
own, but it sure saves time to teach them.
For me, it depends on why the child is doing what she is
doing. For example, if she thinks that if you play with her toy that she will
never see it again, then she is not being selfish. She is just ignorant about
what psychologists call "object permanence." She thinks that the toy
is being taken away from her forever so she is protecting it.
If she does not think that way, then I would be happy saying
that she is being selfish, which is immoral. The problem is, of course, we just
don't know what the baby is thinking.
That's what I think at least. :)
David
David,
Good
point.
Also good things to think on
concerning Calvinism.
Thanks again for the brain
workout.
Friend
