Posted on 04/30/2004 12:50:45 PM PDT by HarleyD
A few days back I was involved in a discussion about character traits. In my post I'm Selfish, Are You? I mentioned that I don't agree with the rather common position that man is inherently evil. I wanted to expand on why I disagree.
As I mentioned in one of my very first posts on this blog, I tend towards a libertarian political view. Not an anarchist libertarian, but a reasonable one. I want a small government. I want people to leave me alone unless they have good reason to interfere in my life. Sure, it opens me up to more risk, but I believe in the concept in personal responsibility.
One of the corollaries that goes along with the idea that man is inherently evil is that rules and laws have to be used to keep him in line. A lack of rules will naturally lead to anarchy and a society based solely on survival of the fittest.
Now some rules are necessary to keep society functioning properly as there are some evil people in the world. But where does the line get drawn?
If you believe that man is evil you are willing to accept quite a few rules and laws. Proponents of big government usually couch their goal in the rhetoric of protecting the people from unscrupulous charlatans. They argue that big business is evil and that there have to be rules in place to protect the little man.
They ignore the concept of caveat emptor. They act as though people are incapable of taking any step to protect themselves. Man is evil and only government has the key to protect us from the evilness of everyone else.
It's really, in my opinion, a depressing way of viewing the world (and this is coming from someone who is constantly being called an unreformable cynic). It is also directly opposed to my belief that government needs to be smaller.
Now this isn't to say that I believe that man is as pure as the driven snow and therefore rules shouldn't be necessary. To think that man is pure is to completely deny reality.
Rather, man is neutral on whole. Some people are bad, most are good. Good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes do good things. But more importantly, man is smart. Man can analyze a situation and figure out how to take steps to protect himself.
Assuming he's allowed to exercise that kind of personal responsibility. Big government doesn't allow for it.
But why do I keep coming back to this personal responsibility concept? Is it important for something more than just "personal responsibility?"
I think it is. When someone takes responsibility for their own actions, they grow. They become more willing to take risks as they become better able to analyze and respond to the potential problems that they might face. And more importantly, they become more self-sufficient and less likely to look to the government for support.
Small government allows for this to happen. Big government, which is one of the side-effects of the inherently evil position, does not.
It in fact becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Man is evil, so more rules are needed. Man loses the self reliance and personal responsibility that come with freedom. He becomes more dependent on handouts. He becomes lazy. Laziness = evil, which means that we now have to create more rules to stop the slacking. And on and on and on.
I have also never seen any real evidence that man as a whole is evil (if you have some, please post a link to it in the comments). There are some people who are evil. Quite a few. But there have also been quite a few good people, too. Man as a group isn't evil, only some men as individuals.
I can't bring myself to reconcile the idea of man being inherently evil with my libertarian beliefs. The two just don't seem to be able to co-exist as they have fundamentally different approaches to the need for rules. Plus, I just don't like the inherent negativity in the inherently evil approach.
Man is not evil. Just a few individuals.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.
More law = more sin
The author, though probably a nice man, is lacking in historical perspective, a fault which causes him to misunderstand the way things work. For instance, he imagines that "people who want big government" are "people who think that man is inherently evil." Surely, he is aware that the movement toward "big government" is a product of socialism, not conservatism.
What he apparently does not know, is that socialism is a branch of the tree of anarchism, planted by Proudhon. As such, it has as its foundational premise, that humans are naturally good. In order to account for "The Problem of Evil," the anarchists claimed that ALL evil was a product of "Authority;" particularly, Governmental Authority, and Religious Authority. Originally, they considered "Property" as another cause of evil.
Thereupon, there came about the first major division in anarchism: The "social" anarchists v the "individual" anarchists. On the "social" side, there came a division between Marxian (or Dictatorship of the Proletariat) anarchism, and "pure" anarchism. Some of the "pure" anarchists decided they would insinuate their way into the halls of government, to destroy it from the inside. They became what are now called "socialists." Those who would not have anything to do with government, kept on being "pure" anarchists.
Ever since, the socialists have tried to do two things: try to get benefits for the working class, and, while so doing, continue to destroy authority, from within. ["Pure" anarchists, don't really want "bennies" for the working class, they (still) only want to destroy ALL authority.] Socialist anarchists, true to their roots, express those roots in the twin concepts that: humans are not responsible for their actions, so they are not to be held to account; (except for one type of circumstance) on the other hand, something must be held to account--some non-human "instrumentality."
One needs only to consider the currently demonized guns, or SUV's, or cigarettes, or Zionism, or fundamentalism, or fat..... These are non-human instrumentalities, although the socialist zeal to punish the instrumentality often means hardship or death, to the humans with which it is connected.
A lack of rules will naturally lead to anarchy and a society based solely on survival of the fittest.
A better way to say this would be that anarchists wish for a society where there exists NO authority. They imagine that, in that utopia, everyone will act kindly, and all will be sweetness and light. In so imagining, they must pretend away much of what is known of human nature.
I tend towards a libertarian political view. Not an anarchist libertarian, but a reasonable one.
I can't bring myself to reconcile the idea of man being inherently evil with my libertarian beliefs.
Man is not evil. Just a few individuals.
The author SEEMS to be aware of the anarchist roots of his philosophy, although he wishes to distance himself from them. Nevertheless, he approaches these roots (asymptotically) by saying that "Man is not evil..."
DG
Actually, the author presumes this. I happen to think the author is incorrect and has a flaw in his logic. If man is basically evil (which I happen to believe from original sin) the last thing I would want to do is put control in the hands of a few bureaucrats who also are evil. Rather, I would want a free enterprise system in which many could participate with little intervention.
Oddly, there are many Libertarians, such as myself and those pinged above, who actually derive our Libertarianism from the pages of scripture. This of course includes the TOTAL DEPRAVITY of mankind. Much of the criticism i believe, can be addressed by first defining our terms.
What exactly does one mean by "EVIL"?
A second criteria and above all others, the most important, is the question "What does the Scripture say?" The Scripture indeed says that:
21) And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the groound any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Genesis 8:21, KJV
The matter is, i believe, settled.
Exactly Correct, CDL, my Collegiate-Debater Friend.
The flaw in the above "Libertarian's" argument is that he presumes that Man is basically Good, or at least Neutral.
If this were True, we might try to find the Very Best of Men to lead us, and cast our hopes upon them. Papacy, anybody? Come one, come all.... belly up to the bar, and kiss the ring of the Vicar of Christ. Surely he won't lead us astray, even as he lays his suckling kisses upon the Satanic Bible (oops, I mean, the "Koran").
Nope. Sorry... that ain't the way that Calvinists do thangs.
We Calvinists are CYNICS to the core...
When we say "Total Depravity", WE MEAN IT.
The Rightful Calvinist approach to Governance is simply this: A Strong Magistrate is just a totally-depraved Man, with a lot of Power.
Certainly our Calvinist Baptist brethren should agree with this, having been persecuted throughout the Middle Ages and even into Colonial America.
Ultimately, the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity forms the only legitimate and logical basis for a System of Governance: as Thomas Hobbes put it, "The War of All against All."
Calvinism is the only Philophical System which predicates its political philosophy upon the Evil of Fallen Man.
But Calvinism also assumes that Fallen Man is a COWARD.
These are admittedly extreme examples (I don't covet your goods, AJ; and I wouldn't trade my fiance' for any woman); but they serve to make the point:
Calvinist Political Theonomy is predicated upon the Evil and Selfishness of Man. But while Man is Evil and Selfish, Man is also a COWARD:
And that's the beauty of the Second Table of the Mosaic Law: It DEPENDS upon Carnal Selfishness, the only thing that you can COUNT ON from Fallen Man:
Calvinism assumes a Minarchist Social Covenant amongst self-interested Actors to prohibit Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, and Abuse; and proving the Truth of Calvinist Theonomy and the Second Table of the Law, it just so happens that this is what self-interested Actors desire!!
But beyond such basic Mores of Self-Interest, it is beyond the power of The State to Create Morality.
Calvinism depends upon The Church, empowered by the All-Holy Spirit, for the inculcation of Genuine Virtue.
This is as it should be.
best, OP
This is exactly why Calvinism as so proposed is AntiChristian.
Calvinism fails to respect the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father in the believer. It fails to discern an old sin nature in the flesh which remains in believers from salvation and remains in the regenerated believer's body until the resurrected body is received.
It attempts to create a fraudulant system of governance over believers by insisting they are nothing, when in fact they are part of the royal family of God, fully capable of divine good works through remaining in fellowship with God.
Instead of placing priority in following God's will, Calvinism accuses, slanders, and demeans believers into thinking they really are depraved, when on the contrary, by remaining faithful through Christ, there is nothing that can separate the believer from God, especially Calvinist insistence upon total depravity.
Calvinism also fails to recognize that all the human good it purports as a religious institution is also twisted into a Satanic cosmic system of evil counterfeit to God's plan.
This is precisely why Christ never exhibited behavior promoted by Calvinists. He conquered sin in His humanity and resisted any appeal to His divinity on the cross. He did this out of faith strictly in His humanity.
You fail to recognize the purpose of the virgin birth. It is precisely because of man's depravity that our Lord Jesus had to be born outside of the race of Adam. Christ conquered sin in His humanity but it was the pure, unblemished humanity that Adam had prior to his fall, not the fallen state Adam had after his sin.
Congratulations!
(More replying later, but I wanted to say that right now.)
Or as my Pastor put it today , man is becoming more and more evil, only fools thing laws and regulations can stem that tide
i would have a slight disagreement on this point. Were that the nature of man be inclined to Good, government would NECESSARILY be non existent as is presently known. The family would be the only form that one could conceivably recognise as government, and that would be flawless.
C.S. Lewis envisioned such a state in the book Out of the Silent Planet, Where the "Martians" were not subject to the depravity and falleness of the inhabitants of "The Silent Planet" (earth). The three different "races" of beings there did not have, or need governing. The only time the authority of the Eldils was excercised was when the Humans entered the picture. Specifically, one of the humans pondered the question "who runs things around here?" The Martians were confused by the question, and when pressed, admitted "Nobody is in charge, we just do what we do."
Indeed, in a society where the nature of man is unfallen, even Libertarianism would be oppressive. Anarchy would be the "governmental" system in existence. "Good" men do not need Law, their restraint is a product of their nature. Law, and Government is for the Law Breaker.
Indeed, that Law and Government exist AT ALL is a testimony to our Depravity and falleness.
The Rightful Calvinist approach to Governance is simply this: A Strong Magistrate is just a totally-depraved Man, with a lot of Power.
Precisely! THIS is the reason that the powers of Government must be neccessarily limited. This is the basis for Libertarianism from a Christian perspective.
Well, i congradulate you my friend, but express a bit of disappointment. You see, i was in the process of arranging a Marriage for you with a very pretty, very brilliant, 18 year old Jedi apprentice that i have been training for the past two years or so...(sigh!) The match would have been so Eugenically interesting, as to be frightening.
But beyond such basic Mores of Self-Interest, it is beyond the power of The State to Create Morality.
For decades now, i've run into the counterpoint..."But all Law is Legislated Morality". My reply then as now, is Which is plenty of reason that there should be fewer of them! One must shudder at the thought of the State, composed of fallen beings, who are no better Spiritually than the worst dregs of society, being the final arbitor of Morality for that society.
It does?
It attempts to create a fraudulant system of governance over believers by insisting they are nothing, when in fact they are part of the royal family of God, fully capable of divine good works through remaining in fellowship with God.
The "good works believers can do are those foreordained for him. They flow not from his nature, but the nature of the Holy Spirit indwelling him
Instead of placing priority in following God's will, Calvinism accuses, slanders, and demeans believers into thinking they really are depraved, when on the contrary, by remaining faithful through Christ, there is nothing that can separate the believer from God, especially Calvinist insistence upon total depravity
You have no clue what Calvinism teaches C, so why do you pretend to? Once converted to repentance and belief a saved man is no longer TOTALLY depraved. He has a new nature , He is a new creation in Christ . We move by Gods grace toward sanctification .
Calvinism also fails to recognize that all the human good it purports as a religious institution is also twisted into a Satanic cosmic system of evil counterfeit to God's plan.
C I do not think you would know Gods plan if you fell over it. Your soteriology proves that .
This is precisely why Christ never exhibited behavior promoted by Calvinists. He conquered sin in His humanity and resisted any appeal to His divinity on the cross. He did this out of faith strictly in His humanity.
And what behavior might that be ? Do you mean like saving all those the Father gave to Him?
I am sure glad you thought to mention that , it is of "passing interest" to us ya know?? Blessings on the coming marriage.
BTW???
May we assume the future Mrs. OP is an OP also?
And please assure us she will not covet too much of your Freeper time. We had you first.
Amen, CDL. A perfect statement illustrating the synergy between Calvinism and true Conservatism.
I'm glad to see once in your posts you have come to recognize that man is not totally depraved.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.