Psychological Depravity Summary/Conclusion

PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPRAVITY

Summary/Conclusion

Virgil Warren, PhD

            The proposition counter to natural depravity is as follows: there is no (1) clear (2) biblical basis for saying that Adam’s ability in regard to (3) spiritual things after the fall was any different from what it was (4) before the fall in a (5) biologically inheritable sense.

            By “clear” biblical base we mean that some passages could be understood the way natural depravity takes them, but no passage requires such an understanding. In fact, many texts offered in support of that concept cannot have that meaning.

            By “biblical” base we mean that there are experiential observations that could be put in the service of a view like natural depravity. Skinnerian psychology proposes something similar even though in our estimation the experimental evidence for that conclusion is no closer to being positive proof than the biblical evidence for it. But Christian theologians are concerned with biblical more than scientific evidence, evidence put together using the scientific method. More particularly, “biblical” evidence contrasts with philosophical thought. Natural depravity is an understandable concept and one that has relatively strong explanatory power as far as ideas go, and it can be put in relatively self-consistent terms (minus, of course, the strictures noted above in at least the Calvinistic formulation of it). But the theological task is not a creative one so much as an interpretative one. Christian teaching needs to arise from scripture more than from creative imagination.

            Ability in relation to “spiritual” things distinguishes the issue at hand from losses that scripture indicates our first parents incurred when they disobeyed. It also contrasts with having a higher IQ, better psychomotor skills, and the like. Nothing is said in Genesis or elsewhere about any loss that reduced innate human ability to operate interpersonally with God or fellowmen.

            The phrase “before the fall” draws attention to a comparison between the way man was after he first sinned and the way he was before. The value of this observation lies in the fact that we may be able to imagine how man could ideally have more power to resist temptation and obey God. But the proper comparison is not between the way we are and some imaginable higher level, but between the way Adam was before and after the fateful disobedience. When mankind first sinned, he did not have a “fallen” nature; so having a fallen nature is not necessary for explaining the fact that people sin.

            “Biologically” inheritable specifies that whatever defect a person could have must be transmitted genetically for it to necessitate supernatural remedying by the Spirit. Behavioral depravity passes along socially as well as originate repeatedly in each person through ignorance plus the pull of neutral bodily drives that can be fulfilled in negative ways, especially under influence from other persons. Since the “father of lies” sinned without a tempter, people can originate faults on their own. Angels do not have a physical constitution; yet they fell without a genetic defect comparable to what natural depravity envisions. Their fall shows that such a defect is unnecessary for explaining the occurrence of sin in personal humans or angels.

            The failure to live above our individual viewpoint and to override bodily drives and bad influence by interpersonal values, stems from the fact that it is easier not to live transcendently. It is easier to act by our present material interests than to curb self-gratification by considering future consequences, transcendent principles, and the welfare of others. After sin has originated in an individual, the morally neutral ability to form habits explains how it is perpetuated in them. In other words, psychological depravity—the power of sin to hold us down, the bondage of the will—results from previous sin. It can be explained as the pull of past sin on present resolve, by ingrained habit rather than inborn defect. Psychological depravity comes from “self-depravitization” rather than hereditary corruption. The natural-depravity proposal represents overkill for explaining universal and all-pervasive sin in humankind.

christir.org