Latest / Reformed Thinking / Natural Instincts That Resemble Virtue—but Are Not True Holiness | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Natural Instincts That Resemble Virtue—but Are Not True Holiness | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. Have you ever, you know, seen a
0:03
stranger crying on a park bench and felt this really sudden,
0:06
intense pang of pity? Right.
0:08
Or even just looking at your kids and you feel this huge rush
0:11
of overwhelming sacrificial love.
0:13
Yeah. And in that moment, there is
0:15
this little voice in your head that says, I have a good heart,
0:18
I am a truly good person. It is a very common assumption
0:21
to make, honestly. Well, today on this deep dive we
0:23
are taking that specific assumption and dismantling it
0:26
piece by piece. We are looking at an excerpt
0:29
from Jonathan Edwards philosophical and theological
0:32
text The Nature of True Virtue. Specifically, we are looking
0:36
into a section titled A Particular instincts of Nature,
0:39
which in some respects resemble virtue.
0:42
The mission today is to figure out why Edwards looks at our
0:45
seemingly kindest, most natural, most beautiful human reactions
0:49
and says that they are not actually true goodness.
0:52
To really understand his conclusion, we have to grasp his
0:55
core premise regarding how human beings operate great in the
0:58
physical world, right? Where does he start?
1:00
He establishes early on that there are specific laws of
1:03
nature determining our minds to certain affections.
1:06
He refers to these as instincts. So he's looking at human
1:10
behavior from almost an engineering perspective.
1:13
Spot on. The critical thing to grasp
1:15
right away is the engineering behind them.
1:18
The Creator implanted these instincts chiefly for the
1:21
preservation and the comfortable subsistence of mankind.
1:24
Meaning they are survival mechanisms.
1:26
Yes, that is their primary function.
1:28
I think we should define what those instincts actually look
1:30
like in practice before we get into analyzing the specific
1:33
emotions of love and pity. Good idea.
1:36
Edwards categorizes human natural inclinations into a very
1:39
specific framework. He starts with personal
1:42
instincts, which seem pretty straightforward.
1:45
Yeah, these are basic natural appetites and aversions.
1:48
You know you feel hunger, so you eat.
1:50
Or you touch a hot stove and your hand instinctively pulls
1:53
away to prevent severe burns. Right, that is the most baseline
1:57
category. From there, he moves to social
1:59
instincts. Which are what specifically?
2:01
Mainly the mutual inclinations between the sexes which ensure
2:05
the physical continuation of the species.
2:07
Makes sense. What's the next category?
2:09
Then he identifies sensitive instincts.
2:12
These relate closely to the personal ones, but deal with
2:15
physical needs and comforts. Like the enjoyment of meat and
2:18
drink and the physically driven aspects of human relationships.
2:21
Yes, the basic comforts, but the 4th category is really the arena
2:25
where Edwards's entire argument takes place.
2:28
He calls these the internal or mental instincts.
2:32
Right. And those mental affections are
2:33
the ones mankind naturally exercises toward fellow
2:36
creatures. This is the realm of feeling
2:38
affection for your neighbor or feeling distress when someone is
2:42
hurt. Or feeling bonded to your
2:43
relatives. And Edwards makes a very sharp
2:45
distinction here, he notes. Some of these instincts have an
2:48
angry appearance. Like jealousy?
2:50
Yeah, jealousy. We look at jealousy,
2:52
particularly between and the sexes, and we easily recognize
2:55
it as a raw, self preserving instinct.
2:58
We never confuse jealousy with virtue.
3:01
Absolutely, but the other side of that coin contains what he
3:04
calls the kind affections. Because these possess the
3:07
appearance of benevolence, they mimic the texture of true
3:11
goodness. And that mimicry creates a
3:14
massive trap for human self evaluation.
3:18
We assign moral weight to a mechanism of nature.
3:21
We confuse the hardware for a moral choice.
3:23
Yeah, I mean, if you have an instinct telling you to drink
3:27
water when you are thirsty, you do not assume drinking the water
3:31
makes you a St. You recognize you are simply
3:34
thirsty. Right, it's just biology.
3:37
But when you have a mental instinct that tells you to care
3:39
for a sick friend, you kind of pat yourself in the back and
3:42
assume you possess inherent moral purity.
3:45
Edwards is pointing out that both are just mechanical
3:47
responses designed to keep human beings alive.
3:50
Yes, they are functionally the same thing.
3:52
Think about this concept like a smartphone.
3:54
When you buy a brand new phone, it comes with a preinstalled
3:57
operating system. Right, iOS or Android?
3:59
The manufacturer put it there so the device would actually
4:02
function. In the real world, if the
4:03
phone's battery gets dangerously low, the screen automatically
4:07
dims to save power. It does it on its own.
4:10
Yeah, that dimming screen is a builtin preservation tactic.
4:13
It happens automatically when we experience these kind
4:17
affections, these waves of natural pity or familial love.
4:21
Edwards is making the case that we are witnessing the factory
4:25
installed operating system kicking in.
4:27
It is a pre installed program designed to keep the human race
4:30
functioning and prevent us from destroying ourselves.
4:33
Rather than a conscious moral choice made by the user to be
4:37
truly good. The smartphone analogy captures
4:40
the mechanics really well. The operating system is designed
4:43
by the creator for a specific practical function preservation
4:47
a. Functioning operating system is
4:49
wonderful and necessary, but it is not the definition of true
4:53
goodness. Right.
4:54
It's just fulfilling its baseline programming.
4:56
Well, if being nice to a neighbor and loving family
4:58
members is just the factory operating system doing its job,
5:02
what is the actual standard of true goodness?
5:04
What is Edwards measuring humanity against?
5:06
Edwards defines true virtue as general benevolence, or a union
5:11
of heart to being simply considered.
5:13
That is a massive, sweeping philosophical concept.
5:16
It is true virtue requires a supreme regard for God and a
5:21
benevolent love toward universal existence as a whole.
5:24
So it is an alignment with the entirety of reality.
5:26
Yes, prioritizing the highest good, which is God above all
5:30
else. Let's breakdown being simply
5:33
considered. That is a pretty dense phrase.
5:35
How do you read it? I interpret that to mean valuing
5:38
existence itself, starting with the highest and most infinite
5:42
existence, God, and then cascading down to all creation.
5:46
That is a very accurate reading. So if my affection is narrowly
5:49
focused, you know, if I only care about my little slice of
5:51
the pie, my comfort, my family, my town, and I am disconnected
5:56
from a supreme love for the creator and universal existence,
5:59
my affection falls totally short of the standard.
6:02
It lacks the fundamental nature of true virtue.
6:05
No matter how helpful that localized affection is to
6:07
society, it's lacking. Even if it brings a lot of
6:10
comfort to your immediate circle.
6:11
Even then, if it does not flow from that supreme regard for
6:14
universal being, it is something else entirely.
6:17
It is instinct doing the heavy lifting.
6:19
Well, if true virtue demands a universal, supreme regard for
6:23
all being, that creates a major collision with the most
6:27
universally praised human trait in existence.
6:30
Which is parental love. Yeah, society builds its entire
6:33
moral framework on the family unit.
6:35
We look at a mother's sacrifice for her baby or a father working
6:38
three jobs to feed his kids, and we say that is the pinnacle of
6:42
human goodness. But Edwards argues this natural
6:44
affection the love parents have for their children stems from
6:48
two sources simultaneously. What are they?
6:50
A natural instinct for preservation and self love.
6:53
I have to push back on that idea on behalf of the listener.
6:55
Are we really saying a parent staying up all night with a sick
6:58
toddler, giving up their own sleep and physical health is
7:02
acting out of self love? It sounds counterintuitive.
7:04
It sounds entirely selfish. Are you saying a mother
7:07
sacrifice has 0 moral value? How does Edwards justify tearing
7:11
down the virtue of the family unit like that?
7:13
We have to separate the concept of moral value from biological
7:17
necessity. Edwards is not saying the parent
7:20
sacrifice is a bad thing. He agrees it is a necessary,
7:23
beautiful provision for human survival, right?
7:25
Yes, but he is asking a very precise question.
7:30
Is this action true virtue? He provides A mathematical logic
7:36
to prove it is not. Mathematical.
7:38
How so? If your benevolence extends only
7:40
to a particular person or a private system, in this case
7:43
your immediate family, it cannot be true virtue.
7:47
True virtue requires an alignment with universal
7:50
existence. And a family is an infinitely
7:53
small fraction of universal existence.
7:55
That is the mathematical reality.
7:57
Edwards uses the historical example of the Roman Empire to
8:00
illustrate this. OK, lay that out for us.
8:02
You could be a citizen completely devoted to Rome,
8:04
willing to die for the empire, showing immense benevolence to
8:07
millions of fellow citizens. You might even sacrifice your
8:10
own life to save a Roman legion. Which everyone in Rome would
8:13
call the highest virtue. But compared to the vastness of
8:16
universal existence in the infinite nature of the Creator,
8:19
the Roman Empire is just a private system.
8:22
It bears 0 mathematical proportion to the great and
8:25
universal system of all reality. So your benevolence is still
8:28
boxed into a tiny localized sphere.
8:31
I mean precisely, limited private benevolence, no matter
8:35
how intense, is fundamentally different from general
8:38
benevolence. I can understand the logic, but
8:40
the practical fallout of that is huge.
8:43
The fallout is what Edwards wants us to see.
8:45
Because a private affection does not rise from general
8:48
benevolence, it actually tends to produce the very opposite
8:52
effect. How does it produce the
8:53
opposite? If a private affection is
8:55
unsubordinate, meaning it is not placed below the supreme love of
8:59
God and universal being, it tends to produce opposition to
9:03
being in general. Think about a massive
9:06
corporation. You have an executive who runs
9:08
the marketing department, OK, She is fiercely loyal to her
9:12
team. She fights tooth and nail to get
9:14
them the best salaries. She secures the biggest budget.
9:17
She defends them in every meeting.
9:19
Inside that specific department, she is seen as incredibly
9:22
benevolent. She is a hero to her private
9:24
system. Right.
9:26
But her loyalty is entirely localized.
9:29
Yeah, and she is so focused on her private system that she
9:32
actively sabotages the other departments.
9:34
She steals budget from research and development.
9:36
I see where you're going. She hoards the best talent and
9:39
refuses to let them transfer to divisions that desperately need
9:43
them. She ignores the fact that the
9:45
company as a whole is going bankrupt because she is only
9:48
optimizing for her floor of the building.
9:50
Her local loyalty is fierce, but the global impact on the entire
9:54
company is destructive. That visualization illustrates
9:58
the danger of unsubordinate affection perfectly.
10:00
It really does. The executives affection for her
10:03
team is disconnected from the general well-being of the
10:06
company. In the same way, human beings
10:09
elevate their private systems, their family, their nation,
10:12
their tribe. And when that private affection
10:14
is the highest ruling principle, it easily justifies terrible
10:17
actions toward anyone outside that system.
10:19
Right. Wars are fought, resources are
10:21
hoarded, and justices are ignored, all in the name of
10:24
loving our private system. The Roman citizen loves Rome, so
10:27
he feels completely justified in slaughtering the Carthaginians.
10:31
The localized affection does not arise from a virtuous principle,
10:34
and therefore has no tendency to produce true virtue as its
10:38
effect. It only produces a well defended
10:40
fortress. Well, if a mother's love is a
10:43
survival mechanism for the offspring tied to a private
10:46
system, what does that say about the spark creating the family in
10:49
the first place? You mean romantic love?
10:51
Yeah, let's look at romance. How does Edwards handle the
10:54
mutual affection between the sexes?
10:57
He handles it with remarkable nuance.
10:59
Actually, he does not reduce romantic love to pure
11:02
animalistic drive. That's surprising.
11:04
Edwards specifically engages with philosophers of his day
11:09
like Francis Hutchison and David Hume.
11:11
Hutchison argued for an innate moral sense in humanity, while
11:15
Hume focused on sympathy. They both viewed the kind
11:18
affections between people as evidence of inherent human
11:20
goodness, didn't they? Yes.
11:22
And Edwards agrees with them on one specific point.
11:25
The kind affections between the sexes are separate from pure
11:29
physical sense of desire. I mean, anyone who has ever been
11:32
in love knows there's a genuine disposition to mutual
11:35
benevolence. You genuinely want the other
11:37
person to be happy. You find complacence in their
11:39
company. It is not just physical
11:41
appetite, there is a real emotional bond.
11:44
But Edwards immediately pivots to analyze the reason for this
11:47
specific emotional bond. Why is this instinct design this
11:51
way? Why does it feel so all
11:52
consuming and benevolent? The author of Nature implanted
11:55
it for a very pragmatic reason, the continuation of mankind.
11:59
Because the survival of the human species requires a
12:02
massive, almost incomprehensible amount of Labor.
12:06
Think about the physical reality of what it takes to raise a
12:08
human being. A human infant is completely
12:11
helpless for years. Yeah, the sheer amount of
12:13
resources, the anxieties, the physical pain of childbirth, the
12:18
sleepless nights. The financial strain.
12:20
The decades of provision required to educate and support
12:23
a family. If human beings evaluated that
12:25
proposition purely on cold logic, the burden would seem
12:29
insurmountable. No one in their right mind would
12:31
sign up for it if you handed them a spreadsheet detailing the
12:34
cost without any emotional reward.
12:36
That's totally right. The creator's designed for
12:38
overcoming this hardship. Is this mutual affection?
12:42
This romantic bond is the necessary mechanism making
12:45
individuals willing to forsake their parents, leave the comfort
12:49
of the families where they were brought up, and unite with a
12:52
companion. Yes, to endure all of those
12:55
immense laborers and pains together.
12:57
If you are navigating your own relationships right now, think
13:01
about how society romanticizes this mutual affection.
13:05
We write thousands of songs about it.
13:07
We make movies about it. We elevate it as the absolute
13:10
highest form of human destiny. But Edwards looks at it and sees
13:13
a pragmatic, biological and social glue.
13:17
He does acknowledge it is partly given for the comfort of mankind
13:20
in the marriage relation. He does.
13:21
It makes the hardship bearable, but it is still a provision for
13:25
survival. Without it, the entire
13:28
enterprise of child rearing and societal continuation would
13:31
collapse. Furthermore, because this
13:33
affection is limited strictly to the opposite sex by a specific
13:36
instinct, it clearly does not arise from general benevolence.
13:39
General benevolence has no tendency to limit itself based
13:42
on gender or biological utility. The instinct does.
13:45
Therefore, while it is necessary and comforting, it cannot claim
13:48
the title of true virtue. We are seeing a pattern here.
13:51
Familial love preserves the offspring.
13:54
Romantic love initiates the family despite the hardships.
13:58
Both are tied directly to self preservation, procreation and
14:02
private systems, but family and romance clearly have a return on
14:05
investment for the human species.
14:07
Which brings us to a harder question.
14:09
What about pity? What happens when you see a
14:12
total stranger in pain, Someone who can offer you absolutely
14:15
nothing in return, and your heart aches for them?
14:18
That appears entirely selfless. This launches the most detailed
14:21
breakdown of the entire text. Let's dissect the mechanics of
14:24
pity. Edwards defines natural pity
14:27
very precisely. He calls it an uneasiness upon
14:30
the sight of others extreme distress.
14:32
He fully acknowledges this reaction is natural to mankind.
14:35
Right he does, but he argues this uneasiness is completely
14:38
distinct from a truly virtuous divine benevolence.
14:42
He provides 3 proofs to show pity is an automatic mechanical
14:45
reaction, not a sign of pure goodness.
14:48
Let's look at proof one at the death test.
14:50
Edwards argues that if pity were truly a form of benevolence,
14:53
meaning it was a genuine desire for the happiness of the object,
14:57
then we would be equally distressed by someone's total
14:59
lack of happiness. So if I truly want a straighter
15:02
to be happy, any situation where they possess 0 happiness should
15:06
devastate me. But look at how human beings
15:08
react to death, Edwards points out.
15:10
There are many people who view death as the total cessation of
15:14
all sensibility. They believe death is the
15:16
complete and permanent end of all happiness.
15:18
Yet when they know someone is dead, they feel no ongoing
15:22
active uneasiness about the fact that the person is currently
15:25
experiencing 0 happiness. They might be sad for their own
15:28
loss, mourning the accents of their friend, but they are not
15:31
actively pitying the dead person's lack of joy, right?
15:34
However, if that same person saw the individual alive but
15:38
enduring extreme temporary physical anguish, maybe breaking
15:42
a leg or suffering a severe burn, they would be immediately
15:45
moved to intense pity. They would feel physical
15:48
uneasiness upon seeing the distress.
15:50
That contradiction is incredibly revealing.
15:53
If benevolence is the desire for someone's pleasure, permanent
15:56
death is the ultimate deprivation of pleasure.
15:59
But we do not react to the deprivation, we only react to
16:03
the visible distress. The instinct is triggered by the
16:06
sight of extreme pain, not by a philosophical evaluation of
16:10
their total happiness. Which brings us to proof to the
16:13
brood creature test. People will see an animal like a
16:16
dog or a horse, invisible torment, caught in a trap or
16:20
suffering an injury, and they will feel an overwhelming wave
16:23
of pity. They will be moved to act, to
16:25
intervene, to stop the suffering.
16:27
But those same people feel absolutely 0 uneasiness knowing
16:31
that thousands upon thousands of animals simply cease to exist
16:35
every single day. They are completely indifferent
16:37
to the positive pleasure of those creatures.
16:40
They do not spend their days hoping the squirrels in the park
16:42
are having a joyful experience. True benevolence rejoices in the
16:45
positive pleasure of its object. Pity does not care about the
16:49
pleasure, it only reacts to the extreme visible pain.
16:53
You can greatly pity something while being entirely indifferent
16:56
to its actual joy. It is the difference between
16:58
genuinely wanting a creature to thrive versus wanting the
17:01
terrible noise of its suffering to stop so your own uneasiness
17:05
goes away. But Edwards saves the most
17:07
complex psychological scenario for Proof 3, the enemy test.
17:12
He argues that pity can exist simultaneously with true
17:15
malevolence. How can you pity someone you
17:18
actively hate? That sounds contradictory.
17:21
Edwards asks us to imagine a person who holds genuine ill
17:24
will toward an enemy. They actively desire calamity to
17:28
fall upon this person. They want them to fail.
17:31
They want them to suffer a certain degree of misery as
17:33
payback for a perceived wrong. Yeah, we have all felt that
17:37
level of spite. You want the person who wronged
17:39
you to get a taste of their own medicine.
17:41
You want them to lose their job or face public humiliation.
17:44
But human hatred is finite. It has a limit.
17:47
Suppose that enemy suddenly falls into a degree of misery
17:50
vastly exceeding your ill will. You wanted them to lose their
17:53
job, but instead you see them get trapped in a burning
17:56
building, screaming and exquisite physical torment.
17:59
In that moment, the natural instinct of pity overrides the
18:02
hatred. The malevolence does not
18:04
overcome the natural instinct. Once the misery passes a certain
18:08
threshold, you find yourself pitying the very person you
18:12
actively hate. Even if you hold a grudge so
18:14
deep that you would be glad if they died peacefully in their
18:17
sleep, seeing them in disproportionate agony triggers
18:20
the pity response. 100% think about this like a safety valve
18:24
on a heavy duty pressure cooker. You are cooking something and
18:28
you want the heat turned up high to boil the contents.
18:31
That heat represents the malevolence you want the
18:33
situation to boil. But the machine is manufactured
18:36
with a built in mechanical limit.
18:38
When the internal pressure gets dangerously high, threatening to
18:41
blow the entire kitchen apart, the safety valve automatically
18:45
pops open and releases the steam.
18:47
That release of Steam is pity the valve.
18:50
Releasing the Steam does not mean you want the contents to
18:52
cool down entirely. It does not mean you have
18:54
suddenly decided you love what is inside the pot.
18:57
It simply means the mechanical limit was reached and the
19:00
instinct triggered to prevent a total explosion.
19:03
The pity is the safety valve the creator installed to prevent
19:07
human hatred from resulting in absolute unchecked annihilation
19:11
of the species it. Proves pity is not benevolence.
19:14
Your heart is still void of true goodness toward that person, yet
19:17
you are completely capable of pitying them.
19:20
The dismantling of pity is incredibly thorough.
19:23
It forces us to ask a larger question, which is if this is an
19:26
automatic biological safety valve rather than true goodness,
19:30
why was this specific valve installed in US and not others?
19:34
What do you mean by others? Well, if pure benevolence were
19:37
the actual source of our feelings, our emotional
19:40
reactions would be symmetrical. Why don't we have a parallel
19:43
instinct making us physically uncontrollably joyful when we
19:46
see a total stranger succeed? A true point.
19:49
Why doesn't the sight of someone?
19:50
Edwards answers this by looking at the necessity of relief.
19:53
Extreme calamity without intervention tends toward
19:57
destruction. If someone is bleeding out on
19:59
the street, they need the immediate help of others to
20:02
survive. Because survival is the goal of
20:04
these instincts, God provided pity as a merciful provision.
20:08
It compels us to act before the person is destroyed.
20:11
But we do not stand an equal necessity of congratulation in
20:14
order to survive. If a stranger finds a gold mine
20:17
and becomes instantly wealthy, their survival is not dependent
20:20
on you feeling joy for them. They will be fine whether you
20:23
celebrate or not. Therefore, there is no instinct
20:26
implanted for automatic congratulations.
20:29
The asymmetry of our emotions, the fact that we react so
20:32
strongly to misery but are relatively indifferent to a
20:34
stranger's massive success, proves definitively we are
20:38
operating on survival instincts. Not a pure virtuous benevolence,
20:42
desiring the absolute happiness of all beings equally.
20:45
The giving of this instinct is a fruit of God's mercy, Edwards
20:49
points out. It is an evidence of love to the
20:51
world of mankind even. Though the world is fallen and
20:54
sinful, God does not intend for this current physical existence
20:57
to be a world of punishment, so He weaves these merciful
21:01
provisions of relief into our biology.
21:04
This introduces a chilling cosmological conclusion.
21:08
If these instincts, the pity, the familial love, the romantic
21:11
affection, are all provisions agreeable to the state God
21:15
designed mankind for here in this physical world, what
21:19
happens when the environment changes?
21:21
The theological implication for the eternal state.
21:24
Edwards draws out a terrifying prospect for the afterlife.
21:27
He talks about the world of punishment.
21:29
In that eternal state, Edwards argues, God will have no
21:32
merciful designs to answer. The purpose of preservation and
21:35
comfortable subsistence will no longer apply to those inhabiting
21:38
that space. All the instinctual glue
21:40
mimicking goodness will be completely removed.
21:43
In a world of punishment, there will be no disposition to pity
21:45
anyone in distress. There will be no natural
21:47
affection towards your near relatives.
21:49
There will be no mutual affection or romance between the
21:52
sexes. Every mechanism making human
21:54
interaction bearable, every biological safety valve
21:57
preventing absolute cruelty, will simply be uninstalled.
22:02
The removal of common mercy reveals how much we rely on
22:05
these instincts to maintain the illusion of our own inherent
22:08
goodness. Once the Creator withdraws the
22:10
instincts of nature, the true unvarnished state of a heart
22:14
without general benevolence is exposed.
22:16
It is very sobering reflection on the nature of reality without
22:20
the restraining grace of these natural laws.
22:23
Let's synthesize the core takeaways from the source
22:26
material. We have taken a massive
22:28
philosophical path through Edwards logic.
22:30
He acknowledges human beings things possess a natural
22:33
aversion to cruelty. We have a natural approbation or
22:36
approval of things like humanity and mercy.
22:39
But, he insists, as long as these reactions arise only from
22:41
natural instinct, they fall short of true virtue.
22:45
They are mechanics of preservation.
22:47
They're not evidence of a pure heart united to universal
22:49
existence and the Creator. They resemble virtue, but they
22:53
are fundamentally different in origin, in nature.
22:55
The human mind is incredibly adept at taking credit for the
22:58
autonomic functions of the soul. We experience the warmth of
23:02
instinct and declare ourselves righteous.
23:05
Edwards strips away that illusion, forcing the reader to
23:08
recognize the massive gap between biological preservation
23:12
and true holy benevolence. I want to leave you with a final
23:15
thought to Mull over a question to carry with you today based on
23:19
everything we have covered. We've spent this time dissecting
23:21
how our strongest, most reliable feelings of love, romance and
23:25
compassion are pre programmed survival tools given as a
23:28
temporary mercy. If that is true, how should that
23:31
alter the way you evaluate your own daily actions?
23:34
The next time you feel A rush of warmth for your family or a pang
23:37
of pity for a stranger, will you recognize it as the biological
23:40
operating system doing its job, Or will you?
23:43
Do you use it as an opportunity to ask yourself a harder
23:45
question? Are you running entirely on a
23:48
system designed for mere preservation, or are you
23:50
actively pursuing a higher conscious, universal benevolence
23:54
extending far beyond the comfort of your own private sphere?
23:57
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive on reformed thinking.