People Are Neither Rational Nor Self-Interested

When it comes to societal culture—or even individual human nature—is there such a thing as normal? Insanity is, perhaps, a spectrum.

Case in point: imagine extraterrestrials observing earth and what they will see. Drug lords murdering each other. Hordes of men and women addicted to substances. Ethnic warlords turning children into killers. Road rage. School shootings. Terrorism. Drones and bombs. Humanity faces no shortage of stupidity and self-sabotage. The most likely cause of our extinction will be our own actions.

But that is not ordinary people, someone might say. Those are extreme examples. I'm no psychologist or anthropologist, but ordinary people seem to me a bundle of neuroses and self-defeating faults. Entertainment, substances, and therapy are keeping a lot of people going. The average person may not be a pedophile psychopath, but neither can they demonstrate a consistent pattern of purely rational, self-interested behavior. Even now, some are denying the truth of this while reading these words. We can kid ourselves, but we are all subject to our own flaws.

Why am I making a big deal about this?

Douglas Campbell says, "Justification theory presupposes in humans an inherent ability to deduce and appropriately fulfill the truth of certain axioms and, at the same time, a profound universal sinfulness—that is, fundamental and simultaneous incapacity" (Deliverance of God, ch. 2, "Intrinsic Difficulties").

That is to say, the common reading of Paul asserts two different and incompatible views of human nature. On the one hand, all have sinned and fall short of God's glory, with none righteous, no not one. On the other hand, we are surprisingly capable of moral reasoning and philosophical correctness. Which one are we? Morally compromised sinners or accomplished philosophers and moralists?

You see, in order for the justification Gospel to be true, we have to accept that all people are capable of deducing God's existence and moral governance of the world. Monotheism, it seems, is philosophically apparent. People know the right and are capable of following it. Humans have to be good enough at finding truth and keeping moral codes to realize the need for forgiveness from the universally known Judge of All Living Things.

We just don't see that in humanity. A belief in monotheism has spread in some cultures through religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some would argue Zoroastrianism). Monotheism appears in humans as a cultural and religious belief among some people groups, almost always the same groups exposed heavily to monotheistic religions. Monotheism as a belief does not seem to be an axiomatic conclusion. Billions disavow it.

Humans are not capable of deducing God correctly. God is not discoverable.

Sure, you can get pretty close to the God of Christianity using philosophical arguments. But you also use philosophy to prove monism (pantheism) or just about any other meta-narrative you want. But our ability to reason has not resulted in humanity as a whole discovering the Christian God.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said of philosophy that it "may be defined as the art of asking the right questions" (God in Search of Man, ch. 1). He calls it "a kind of thinking that has a beginning but no end." Why doesn't philosophy have an end? "In it, the awareness of the problem outlives all solutions."

There is no "proof" in philosophy. Only endless questioning. Humans do not "arrive" at ultimate truth by deduction. The universe is just inscrutable enough to thwart us and we are just impaired enough to miss the obvious.

If we could, through reasoning, solve our problems, think how different the world would be.

In the television series Star Trek, human beings grow through knowledge into a mostly peaceful, rational race. The futuristic optimism of Star Trek is delightful, but impossible. No, I can't prove utopia will never arrive, but I think it foolish to put much hope in it.

Instead of utopia, many stories now feature dystopia: a grim outlook on the future. Bladerunner and Battlestar Galactica are more likely futures for the human race than Star Trek (but that won't stop me from loving Trek!).

Truth is Revealed, Not Deduced . . .

What is Paul's take on this issue? Could Paul agree that people are capable of finding God by deduction and making the decision to believe in Jesus?

For we know that the Law is spiritual,

but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin.

—Romans 7:14 NASB

No one can say,

“Jesus is Lord,”

except by the Holy Spirit.

—1 Corinthians 12:3b NASB

Paul's view of humanity is that we are compromised. Death, sin, and hostile powers render us less capable than we might be. We act toward our own hurt, which is the opposite of being self-interested. Part of the problem is we do not know ourselves. We do not know if we truly want those self-destructive patterns or if we want wholeness and inner peace. We will continue sabotaging relationships, reducing our lifespans, and causing harm to others for silly, selfish reasons. Some people will make some progress (and I would argue that people who are "in Christ" have resources to make greater progress).

Not only did Paul fail to indicate that the Gospel can be deduced by human beings, he also did not experience the Gospel that way himself. According to justification theory, people realize that God exists and that they are culpable before him. This causes them to rejoice in accepting the contract of saving faith ("believe in Jesus and God will absolve you of sin"). That is, they deduce the reality of God first and their moral guilt, and then realize it is best to accept God's offer through Jesus.

But what did Paul experience? He did not deduce God. He grew up on Abraham and Moses, Israel and the prophets, Torah and Judaism. God was revealed to Paul through Torah tradition. Nor did Paul deduce Jesus. Jesus appeared to him: "last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also" (1 Corinthians 15:8 NASB).

According to Paul's actual Gospel, how does a person come to know God?

The Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us unconditionally. Truth is revealed, not deduced. It is a gift. The word best used to describe it is grace. Grace does not mean an easier condition for acceptance; it means no conditions for acceptance. What did we do in order to discover Jesus and to be included in Christ? Nothing.

Let this sink in. The concept of grace, of unearned salvation, raises many more questions. How is it fair that some receive it and many don't? I mean, at least justification theory has some sense of fairness since people earn salvation by faith in Jesus. But in the unconditional Gospel that Paul proclaimed, no one earns anything and it seems God chooses arbitrarily. How does God decide who receives it? Does God condemn everyone else? I'm not answering or attempting to answer these at the moment—but in the future, I will write out my theories.

In the meantime, consider one of the most famous Pauline sayings used to speak about salvation. Notice that the "free gift" understanding has always been there, but the verse was interpreted as if it could be consistent with justification theory:

For by grace you have been saved

through faith;

and this is not of yourselves,

it is the gift of God;

not a result of works,

so that no one may boast.

—Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB

Let's consider these phrases and clauses one at a time.

By grace you have been saved. "Grace" is a word so religiously charged that in our day it could mean almost anything. But the core idea is that of an unearned gift.

Through faith. Whose faith? The assumption of justification theory is that this means our faith, also called saving faith, which earns salvation according to the theory. But what if it is Jesus' faith? We will argue elsewhere (based on Romans 3:21-22) that the faith of Jesus, which impelled him to the cross on behalf of sinners, is what saved us (not our faith).

And this is not of ourselves. This line is the crux. What is the "this" Paul refers to? Is it the "grace" from line 1 or the "faith" from line 2 (or both)? The grace we received was certainly not of ourselves. If the faith referenced in line 2 is our faith, then the verse could be saying the faith we have came from God, not from our own process of believing. Justification theory needs line 3 to mean that grace is from God, not us, while faith is, in fact, from our own effort. But I consider this a very unlikely interpretation. Paul's entire point here is that there is no boasting. Not even boasting in saving faith. I read this line as saying none of it is of ourselves. It is all God.

It is the gift of God. It is God who initiated our salvation, not us. We did not earn it or bring it about.

Not a result of works. This uses a technical term (which we will discuss in future articles). "Works" is shorthand for "works of the law." Paul speaks of "works" only in the justification passages—which Douglas Campbell has shown with a high level of thoroughness to be a specific response to a short-lived situation happening in Asia Minor. Paul clarifies here that neither Jewish Torah keeping nor pagan moral philosophy bring salvation.

So that no one may boast. If only Christians grasped this truth. The common reading of Paul seems to eliminate boasting, but it actually does not. In the Gospel of Saving Faith a person can boast that they deduced God and received Jesus by being willing to believe. Paul's "no boasting" principle ought to tell us the obvious: salvation is initiated by God and comes to us as an unconditional, unearned gift.

We have no faith of our own. We are able to say "Jesus is Lord" by the Holy Spirit. People are neither rational nor self-interested. But we are capable of being transformed by God through grace.