Is Man good or evil?

[SMcCarthy]

Occationally I will listen to a Protestant radio station when the Catholic channel doesn’t have anything on I want to listen to. The one thing that they push more than anything is that Man is evil and that there is no good in us. What is the Catholic Church’s view of Man? Obviously there are scriptures saying that Man is both good and bad.

 

[bogeydogg]

OK, I’m a protestant. I assume you are reffering to, or at least that the preaching you hear is based upon, the idea of Total Depravity, generally attributed to Calvin though Calvin never said anything about any such doctrine.

The idea is not that man is as bad as he possibly can be, only Satan is 100% evil 100% of the time. Rather the idea is that man is fallen because of Adam’s sin and because of this we are evil creatures in that we sin and love evil. Jer. 17:9 The heart above all things is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it? The idea is not that man is evil in a great big metaphysical sense, but that we are evil because we sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3) by nature.

So yeah, according to the Bible man is evil, but don’t let it get you down because Jesus is good and God’s mercy is more than sufficient to overcome any and all evil which we do if we repent and turn to Him.

 

[Joyousguard]

If man were evil, why would man always seek the good or intrinsicly know to seek the good?

Man is made in the image and likeness of God. If man is evil, then it would stand that God is evil as well. Man may be imperfect and prone to sin and temptation but evil they are not.

Aristotle once said that we are what we repeatedly do. This is mostly true. A man who lies repeatedly or habitualy is a liar and other examples like this would follow. But it is mans nature to seek the good or the percieved good. Whether it is percived good or the actual good it is the desire of all men to seek this. If all men seek the good and seek to do good, well then we are what we repeatedly do.

Evil comes about through our actions of rejecting God through sin. We all sucumb to temptation at some point in our lives but we still seek the good although this might be a percieved good such as sex or money because sometimes we are deluded into thinking these are actual good things. (very condensed argument for brevity)

Man does not love evil nor do they sin because they wish evil.

I will be more than happy to explain further or Ill simply copy and paste something I wrote in another forum that runs it through step by step logicaly and theologicaly that it is contray to any understanding of God or man that we are intrinsically evil.

pax tecum

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Occationally I will listen to a Protestant radio station when the Catholic channel doesn’t have anything on I want to listen to. The one thing that they push more than anything is that Man is evil and that there is no good in us. What is the Catholic Church’s view of Man? Obviously there are scriptures saying that Man is both good and bad.

I think you need to read some Blaise Pascal. He says that man is both great and wretched, for two reasons

The first is that he has the ability to follow moral law, but fails so miserably.

The second is that the entire universe could crush him, and he would be swallowed. But, man would be aware of this because he is rational, and thus is better than the universe.

I think before you ask whether or not man is good or evil, you must set up your working definition of good and evil. By man being good, do you mean that if a starving man on the street asks for some food, he will give it to him? Or do you mean that men are easily capable of acts of love such as Mother Theresa? And by man being evil, do you mean that he must be pressured to provide even a scrap of food to the needy, or do you mean that men naturally will the destruction of other men and with little thought to their well-being?

In other words, how good does a man have to be to qualify as good, and how evil must a man be to qualify as evil?

 

[drthomas_21]

OThe one thing that they push more than anything is that Man is evil and that there is no good in us. What is the Catholic Church’s view of Man?

Man is neither good nor evil. Man has the pontential to do great good or evil – it is a choice.

David R Thomas sends…

 

[ribozyme]

Remember, man has a natural propensity to search for status, often at the expense of others. This accounts for much suffering and injustice in human society (for example countries with a high gini coefficent).

I will quote this passage from a book called Citizen Cyborg:

Another theorist who argues that egalitarians should embrace subsidized germinal choice technology, including enhancement, is the Princeton University Bioethicist Peter Singer. In Singer’s 2001 A Darwin Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation, he argues that the Left has ignored and denied the sociobiological constraints on politics to its down detriment. Singer contends that there is a biologically rooted tendency towards selfishness and hierarchy in human nature that undermines egalitarian social reforms. If ambitious egalitarian programs of social reform and democratic cooperation are to succeed, Singer argues, we must employ the new genetic and neurological sciences to identify and modify the aspects of of human nature that cause conflict and competition. “In a more distant future we can still barely glimpse, it may turn out to be a prerequisite for a new kind of freedom: the freedom to shape our genes, we can build the kind of society we judge best.”

pg. 198

I suppose we can use molecular manipulations to eliminate this evil aspect from human nature derived from evolution from the parlous journey from the African savannah to now. Maybe we can eliminate the biological facets that made calamities Nazism and the Rwandian genocide and other forms of exploitation possible .

For example, it is possible that obsessive racism can be genetic. Such proclivities are rather inimical towards and egalitarian and utilitarian agenda and should be suppressed.

ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughestv06virtue/ (briefly discussed here at 11:30)

Like Singer, I do not need to invoke “original sin” to explain humanity’s capacity for inflicting suffering on members of its own species and others. It is simply the byproduct of evolution.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If man were evil, why would man always seek the good or intrinsicly know to seek the good?

Man is made in the image and likeness of God. If man is evil, then it would stand that God is evil as well. Man may be imperfect and prone to sin and temptation but evil they are not.

That was how mankind was created - before the Fall. But now, all men are fallen, so they are conceived, born, & live as sinners, who are in a state of enmity to God until they are justified by the grace of Christ.​

As the whole man fell, the whole of his human nature is fallen - which is why people talk of “total depravity”. He is fallen as a totality, so he is depraved as a totality. Which is why Christ has redeemed him as a totality, by taking the totality of human nature on Himself. If man is fallen only in part, he can be saved only in part.

As for Aristotle - he knew nothing of the Fall, nor of what man’s unfallen state, nor of God’s righteous Will for unfallen man, nor of His righteous judgement upon man fallen, nor of the saving work of God, nor of salvation by the grace of God, nor of how God “again and again…offered a covenant to man”. He is too rational to understand something as “irrational” as grace - it is not rational for God the hater of sin to become a man & die for sinful man, so that He might give them Life when they had given Him torment & death. Aristotle is not useless - but his usefulness is limited, because the rationality of the Gospel is made known through the “foolishness” of God; His folly, is far wiser than human wisdom

Aristotle once said that we are what we repeatedly do. This is mostly true. A man who lies repeatedly or habitualy is a liar and other examples like this would follow. But it is mans nature to seek the good or the percieved good. Whether it is percived good or the actual good it is the desire of all men to seek this. If all men seek the good and seek to do good, well then we are what we repeatedly do.

Evil comes about through our actions of rejecting God through sin. We all sucumb to temptation at some point in our lives but we still seek the good although this might be a percieved good such as sex or money because sometimes we are deluded into thinking these are actual good things. (very condensed argument for brevity)

Man does not love evil nor do they sin because they wish evil.

I will be more than happy to explain further or Ill simply copy and paste something I wrote in another forum that runs it through step by step logicaly and theologicaly that it is contray to any understanding of God or man that we are intrinsically evil.

pax tecum

We are not intrinsically evil - but sinfulness is our acquired state. We are “irradiated” with evil, something as a child in the womb of a woman caught in a nuclear blast is irradiated. Everything we do is tainted with evil, because our hearts are not free of evil; & as we are, so are our effects.​

That’s how I see it

 

[Phat]

Man is intrinsically good because that’s how God made us so since He is infinitely good. After the fall of Adam and Eve, we acquired our sinful nature although we are intrinsically good meaning we can be good, but we need divine help. That’s where grace comes in. Without grace, we fall short of the glory of God. So in a sense, the Total Depravity of Protestantism makes sense, but it has been explained before for hundreds/thousand of years by Catholics like Augustine. It’s nothing new.

That’s how I understand man’s nature.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Catholics believe that we (Men) are inherantly good, but have a fallen nature. God made us good, he was happy with what he made. Then Satan promised if we ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then we could “Be like gods”.
What does it mean that we would “be like gods”? It means that instead of God writing the rules and laying out the boundries of what we can and cannot do, we make up our own rules! WE set our own standards. We become like gods. But even although we’ve moved the goalposts, we still cannot do ANYTHING, unless we believe that it is a “Good” thing to do. Sometimes we really have to convince ourselves, but we’ll still find a way to make our mixed up morals acceptable.

So in a nutshell, we were made good, got broke, God offered a way to get fixed, but most people don’t want it. We still want to “be like gods”!

 

[Joyousguard]

"All men seek the good. A christian seeks to help others, a chef seeks his own restaurant etc. etc…you get the point. Now some seek the false good; money, sex, power the list becomes obvious, but the question is “why”. People seek wealth because they see it as a false good and perhaps a satiation of their desired happiness. People seek sex because it is pleasureable and offers them an escape. People seek power because they want control etc. etc. Murderers even seek the good when they murder. This is a false good but none the less they seek the good but are uable to distinguish between what is a false good and what is an actual good.

Now all humans seek the good and the ultimate satiation of the good is God (see beatific vision) and since all humanity is created in God’s image then God must seek the good as well since God is perfect and the source of ultimate truth, and thus He seeks the good perfectly. If evil or evil actions are not found in seeking the true good and God ultimately is the source of all truth, He himself must be the good and can not be a source of or even be present in the action of seeking a false good (in reality an evil) because evil is a creation of humans succumbing to temptation with God tolerating their freedom to choose and to reject His presence in their actions rather than evil being allowed by God."

 

[Joyousguard]

The above is what I posted on a previous forum for a slightly different question but I think people should understand the main point that it is impossible for man to be an evil creature.

 

[bogeydogg]

Read the catechism concerning sin.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social and morals.

Sorry ya’ll, the RCC disagrees with your assertion that man is basically good.

Read St. Augustine as well.

Now for the commission of sin we get no help from God; but we are not able to do justly, and to fulfil the law of righteousness in every part thereof, except we are helped by God. For as the bodily eye is not helped by the light to turn away therefrom shut or averted, but is helped by it to see, and cannot see at all unless it help it; so God, who is the light of the inner man, helps our mental sight, in order that we may do some good, not according to our own, but according to His righteousness.

There goes St. Augustine.

Then Consider these two things

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Who’s image are we made in again?

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Uh… yeah.

I think it’s safe to say man is wicked. The classic position on sin is not that man is evil because he sins but that man sins because he is a sinner.

Don’t forget, God did not make us to be as we are but we are as is because of sin and that is not what God willed it is what Adam willed in his own decision to disobey God and it is for his sin that all the race of men is cursed. Not because God wanted us to be evil but because he gave us free will and when Adam fell we all fell with him.

 

[Pax]

IS MAN BASICALLY EVIL?

WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS NO:

Gen 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Gen 18:25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Job 1:8
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

Jer 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-15
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Proverbs 11:4-5
Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.
The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 12:2
A good man obtains favor from the Lord, but a man of evil devices he condemns.

Proverbs 12:5
The thoughts of the righteous are just; the counsels of the wicked are treacherous.

Matt 12:35
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. (Also see Luke 6:45)

Luke 1:6 (ref. to Zacahariah & Elizabeth)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 23:50
Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

Mark 6:20
for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man,

Acts 7:20
At this time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God.

Acts 11:24 (ref. to Barnabas)
for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.

1 Tim 4:4
For everything created by God is good,

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT MAN IS BASICALLY EVIL?

The proposition that man is basically evil is normally defended by quoting the following verses:

Romans 3:9-12
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.”

Romans 3:22-23
For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 11:32
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

ANALYSIS

There are no quotes in the bible stating that man is basically evil. There are, however, numerous passages that point out the sinfulness and weakness of man, but none of them even implicitly states that man is basically evil. There are, however, numerous examples that demonstrate both explicitly and implicitly that man is basically good. The assumption that man is basically evil is non-biblical. Instead man is basically good but suffers from a fallen nature.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

The book of Romans as quoted above is the chief source for defending the idea that man is basically evil. Such an interpretation of these verses is clearly problematic for the following reasons:

1. In Romans 3:9-12, Paul says that all are under the power of sin. This is a reference to the “Fall” and the burden of original sin. Paul is speaking of Jews and gentiles as equal in their damaged state of inheritance, and that the Jews need grace and redemption just as much as the gentiles. All of mankind needs redemption, and man is prone to sin, but this fact does not mean that man is basically evil.
2. In Romans 3:9-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14:1-5. Paul makes reference to the Psalm by saying, “as it is written,” and he would not have made that remark or quoted so much of the passage word for word, if he did not intend for us to look to the psalm in order to place his own statements within the Old Testament context. The context of Psalm 14 is made clear in the first verse which states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.” Then in verse four and five the psalm reads, “Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.” Psalm 14 clearly distinguishes between the evil doers (i.e. the fool that says there is no God) and “my people”….”the generation of the righteous.” This is in harmony with all of the above scriptures that state that man is basically good.
3. Romans 3:22-23 and Romans 11:32 merely reiterate what Paul speaks of in reference to Psalm 14. While these verses clearly show that men are under the burden of original sin and that men commit personal sin, they do not state either explicitly or implicitly that man is basically evil.
4. Scripture does not contradict itself. If the Book of Romans or any other book of scripture actually indicated that man was basically evil, then those passages would “clearly” and “directly” contradict Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:31, Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 12:2, Matt 12:35, Luke 1:6, Luke 23:50, Mark 6:20, Acts 7:20, and 1 Tim 4:4.

 

[Joyousguard]

Sorry It’s a bit long of a post but then again this is Theology

The Catechism states " [Original Sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". (CCC 405) Original sin was man’s first conscience rejection of God’s will, however, as the CCC clearly states, human nature was inhibited in its natural powers but these natural powers were not destroyed. Further still, humanity came under an inclination to evil not a choice to do evil.

What does an “inclination to evil” mean? After original sin, and to a lesser extent after Baptism, mankind suffers from this “inclination to evil”. Why the word “inclination” and not a term caring more weight such as “need or “intense desire” or “lust”? Inclination is a very broad term and can cover a very large spectrum from an almost unquenchable thirst to an almost passing whim. Why would such a broad term be used if it was assured that man is evil? Why not use a more definite term to carry the full impact of this truth that man is evil and longs for that which is evil as well?

First and foremost mankind desires the good. Whether this is the “real good” such as desiring to help others and see people happy or the “perceived good” such as wealth, power or fame. All of humanity desires the good but this good can differ greatly and in many instances this “desired good” is a pseudo good and in fact what could be called “evil”. Even murderers do not seek evil but rather seek a false good which for them might be the pleasure they gain from killing. Pleasure is not a bad thing in moderation and with restraint but pleasure from taking the life of another is clearly evil. Man does not intentionally seek evil but rather seeks and desires the pleasures of the “false good”. This “false good”, seen by men as a true good, is a result of ignorance and intellectual blindness from original sin. However, those who can see reality as it is, would often times classify this “false good” as an evil even though evil is the result or the means of a desire but not the actual desire itself.

Why is mankind at times not able to see reality as it is or what is truly good? According to the CCC, mankind was “wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance”. The intellect and reason are the natural powers of mankind that have been blinded by original sin. The intellect and reason help man determine what is truly good and then the will goes out and pursues the good. If these powers of reason and the intellect are blinded by original sin this leaves mankind in a state of ignorance to the true reality of what is actually the good. Mankind is left in a diminished state almost incapable of discerning right from wrong and good from evil. Our natural powers to discern morality which were imbued within us at creation have been blinded with our rejection of God’s will.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

Mankind does not intentionally seek evil, but rather seeks the good that can in actuality be an evil, but we can not see through our own ignorance. We come to know things more easily as evil through the grace of God from Baptism and with it the partial restoration of our natural powers of reason and the intellect to discern what is actually good from what is actually evil. Mankind does not actively seek evil but through ignorance seeks a false good which may in itself may be an actual evil.

The culpability of an individual perusing a false good may differ greatly depending on the individuals moral understanding and the development of their reason and intellectual faculties. A person of greater reason and intellectual understanding bears a greater responsibility for their actions and pursuit of a false good then a person of lesser capacity. However, even if a person of great moral understanding does pursue a false good, while understanding to some extent or another that it is in fact a false good, they are not always completely responsible for their actions but are more or less responsible for their own weak will and the succumbing to temptation that inevitably follows, as well as their lack of desire to shed the veil of ignorance.

In order for an action to be completely evil it must meet three criteria. (Theology of Thomas Aquinas) First, the intent must be an evil intent. That is to say you must desire something for evil purposes. Second, the means or method in which you go about trying to accomplish your desire goal must be evil themselves. Third, the desired ends or goal must be evil. In addition an action cannot be right if the ends come before the intent rather then the intent leading to the ends. Now, since humans desire the good, that is to say the ends that they seek appear to them to be good rather than evil and their intent is one of seeking the good, can anything humanity does ever really be considered truly evil?

Humanity or those taking the moral high ground may often times erroneously classify something as an evil action rather then separating the three parts of intent, means and ends and then analyzing them accordingly. This is an inevitable human fault and one more of ease and expediency than mischief or mal intent.

Look at one of the most infamous instances in human history; the Holocaust. Was Hitler’s action evil? The first question that must be asked is “What was the desire or intent of Hitler”? This can not be said for certain but after examining elements of “Mein Kompf” it becomes very plausible that Hitler truly believed that riding Europe, and perhaps the world, of the Jews would be good, but for the moment let us assume that this was his true desire. Hitler’s intent was to make the world a better place by riding Europe of the Jews because he felt they were a problem. Now, Hitler although most seriously misguided and ignorant (understatement) on this issue, truly wanted to make the world a better place and believed that getting rid of the Jews was a good thing and the way to accomplish his goal. His intent was for “good” or in this instance a “pseudo good”. It is very important to understand that Hitler desired to do a good thing here not something that was evil.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

Now, the method or means that Hitler used to go about fulfilling his desire was to round up the Jews and exterminate them in some of the most brutal means ever devised by man. This does not need to be discussed in any great detail and suffice it to say the methods employed by the Nazis were evil.

Lastly, the ends must be looked at. Approximately 6 million men, women and children where murdered under the “Final Solution”. The list of atrocities goes on and on and again really does not need to be discussed in any detail. The end result was definitely evil.

Was Hitler’s action evil? Does it meet the criteria for an action to be classified one way or the other? Hitler’s intent, although truly unknown to us, was portrayed as a true desire to see the world a better place. His intent was what most of us desire. However the “means” and “ends” where most definitely of an evil nature. But did truly desire evil?

Humans do not seek that which is evil, but rather they seek that which is good. This good can turn out to be a false good that we perceive to be a true good through our own ignorance and blindness of our intellectual faculties. The teachings of the Catholic Church quite accurately state that man is inclined towards evil but that does not mean man’s desire or intent is for evil. Man desires the good or often times a “false good” but he seeks the good none the less. Often times this desire for the false good leads us to an evil means or evil ends but the intent is always a desire for the good. Mankind as a result of original sin is almost incapable of seeing that some ends and means are in fact evil, even though our desires for the good in general blind us to the fact that the desired ends we seek are in fact evil.

Although man often employs evil means or that evil means often lead to evil ends, his intent is always for the good. A man who needs money for his wife’s operation robs a bank to get money. His intent and desire is to save his wife’s life but the means he employs of robbery and the result of a bank being robbed are wrong. Was this man evil? Most of us would say Hitler was evil but what if he only wanted the world to be a better place, regardless of the fact that he employed evil means for an evil ends?

By the reasoning of Aquinas a man’s actions can not be evil, even if the means and ends are evil, if the intent is for the good. Man might be inclined towards evil because of ignorance and the lacking of his intellectual faculties but this is never his intent because mankind only desires the good.

Sin is the conscience, unknowing, or some degree of both, rejection of God’s will. When we reject God’s will our culpability is dependent upon many factors and might absolve a great deal of our responsibility for our actions. We seek the good but sometimes our desires, or more appropriately called our passions, hinder our intellect’s ability to see what is actually good. Even though our intent is for the good we must take responsibility for our actions and the results that occur regardless of the outcome.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

Original Sin has blinded our natural powers of the intellect and its ability to discern right from wrong, truth from non truth. As a result, much evil in this world is caused by our actions even though our intent is for the best.

Through the sacrament of Baptism, original sin is washed away. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle”. (CCC 405) Our intellectual faculties are returned to us and our natural ability to discern right from wrong is returned at lesser degree then it once was and thus requires a bit more effort on our parts to discern in greater detail the specifics of morality. Baptism confers grace from God upon the soul as well as removing the original stain. This grace furthers mankind’s understanding and deepens the faith that we each naturally have within us as children of God. With our growth in spiritual understanding through frequent reception of the sacraments, prayer and study will we only hope to defend ourselves from temptation.

 

[bogeydogg]

OK, let’s define some terms.

When I say man is not basically good I do not mean that man is evil in the sense of St. Thomas, though I would like to point out that under his criteria the only being whom could be truly called evil is Satan and that is perhaps true. However I do believe that our actions do show us to be what we are:
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It seems to me that Jesus, who’ opinion I think supercedes that of St. Thomas, does indicate that evil deeds can, though I am not saying do, prove a man to be evil.

However I do not wish to bring confusion to this because I also want to point out that while a fallen man is certainly corrupted he is also not utterly evil so please don’t hink I am saying that. What I am saying is, and what St. Augustine said, “Now for the commission of sin we get no help from God; but we are not able to do justly, and to fulfil the law of righteousness in every part thereof, except we are helped by God. For as the bodily eye is not helped by the light to turn away therefrom shut or averted, but is helped by it to see, and cannot see at all unless it help it; so God, who is the light of the inner man, helps our mental sight, in order that we may do some good, not according to our own, but according to His righteousness.”

In other words man’s righteousness and his best intentions are not good, at least not good enough. It is not that men do not seek to do good but it is that our very inability to know good, again because of the fall, leads to our not being good regardless of what our intentions may be. When Jesus declared Himself to be “… the way the truth and the light,” He did by no means leave open a qualification for a different way than Himself and neither did He say that well meaning pagans should feel comfy in thier unbelief.

I don’t want to sound harsh but there is a reason that Paul declares the teaching of the Gospel to be foolish and an offense. It is because Christ in coming to us and declaring the Kingdom on His terms alone drew a line in the sand which me must never contradict. That does not mean that we do not love and reach out to those who disagree but we should never create an atmosphere of I’m OK and you’re OK because to do such a thing builds a false sense of security in the mind of the unbeliever. If a man does not know he’s sick will he ever seek a doctor? To assert that man is basically good is to allow for the Pelagian possibility that man might reach Godly righteousness apart from God Himself and to do such a thing would be to wander into a heresy the Church denounced 1700 years ago. To do so would be unthinkable. It would be unkind. It would be murderous, and I fear would demand a terrible price before the Throne if the Church loses many because it would have them feel good about themselves.

I love people and want to see all men come to faith, and it is for this very reason that I think we must unflinchingly stand for the Bible and declare fallen man really fallen, and really dead in sins and trespasses. To do otherwise is beyond reasoning.

 

[bogeydogg]

IS MAN BASICALLY EVIL?

WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS NO:

Gen 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Before the fall

Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Before the fall, remember God cursed all creation because of Adam’s sinned and a cursed creation whatever else it is, is not good.

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Once again, to be blamless before the Law, which Paul asserts increases guilt, is not nessecarilty the same thing as being actually blameless. Had Noah been without sin God would not have needed Christ to redeem men because Noah himself would have proven men did not need a propitiating Savior.

Gen 18:25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Abraham is asserting that there may be righteous men in S&G, but I think you will recall the angels did not find any. Lot was not spared because he was righteous. Lot had selfishly chosen the land when he left Abraham, offered his daughters to the men who would have sodomized the Angels instead of standing firm against them and then got drunk and had sex with both of his daughters once they had left Sodom. Could we not say that Lot wasn’t spared because he was righteous, but rather he was spared because his son/ grandson is Moab who is in the Messianic line? Doesn’t that fit the facts better?

Job 1:8
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

Once again, Job is not sinless or else we would not need Christ. Rather Job is proved to be sinful because God shows him his pride in his own perceived uprightness causing Job to repent in dust and ashes when Job accuses God of dealing with him unfairly.

2 B Cont.