Is Man good or evil?

[Milliardo]

I agree that every man has some good in him. I guess when I say “good” I am thinking of good as judged from God’s standard.

Well, if that’s the case, then we can see that, by God’s standard, man is good as per Genesis.

When you say we seek good, I’m not sure if I agree or disagree w/ this statement. I do not think any of us seek God without his grace and do believe that the council of Trent states the same thing. So, do I think we seek good, even unregenerate man? I would say that we don’t without the grace of God.

This would be like saying that man, in general, is without God’s grace, which is inherently not true. All of man has God’s grace; however, it is up to man to recognize that grace to be with him.

As to what God created, well His creation, as bogeydog mentioned was good but that was before the fall. After the fall we don’t see man described in cheery terms, or at least fallen man isn’t described as good.

If this is true, then God would have changed His mind regarding man, and would have no cause at all to save him. Before or after the Fall, though, God has not changed His mind regarding man.

 

[Milliardo]

The Bible says that God saves us because He loves us not because He sees anything in us worth saving.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I think the better passage there would be Titus 3:5, which shows us that there is nothing that we did has caused God to save us, but His mercy. However, in both passages, we see that the point here is what man did–his works, and even his faith, were not what God caused to save man. It was His love for us (cf. John 3:16) that caused Him to do so. But we go back to that premise then–why would God have that love and compassion for man if man is evil then?

However, having a chance to be good and actually being good, especially considering the Biblical standard for good, is not the same thing.

In my mind, there isn’t any difference at all. Having a chance to be good would then show us that, in the most basic sense, man is still good, as that goodness is there all along. Compare this with man to be degenerate and evil in nature, which shows us that, again in the most basic sense, that man has no chance to be good.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Well, if that’s the case, then we can see that, by God’s standard, man is good as per Genesis.

Is there any difference between man pre-fall and man post-fall? If there is, what is that difference?
"Genesis 6:5-7:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

It doesn’t sound to me that God was all that pleased w/ mankind in general and that the general condition of man was anything but good.

This would be like saying that man, in general, is without God’s grace, which is inherently not true. All of man has God’s grace; however, it is up to man to recognize that grace to be with him.

I disagree and don’t think I even implied that man, in general is without the help of God’s grace.

Do you agree that man, unaided by God’s grace, will not seek God and he won’t seek God because he is incapable of doing so without God’s grace.

It is quite accurate to state that God can remove his grace from a person. For example we see…
Romans 1:18-27:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

We see that God simply allowed these people to do what they want. He didn’t force them to do anything he just turned them over to their own passions by removing His grace.

If this is true, then God would have changed His mind regarding man, and would have no cause at all to save him. Before or after the Fall, though, God has not changed His mind regarding man.

Ephesians 2:1-3:

… and you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body(1 )and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Paul is discussing the hopeless condition of unregenerate man. He describes them as being dead in their sin and following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience. He also describes them as being children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Fallen man is not described as generally being good in the above passage nor in any passage that comes to mind.

If you think fallen man is good, how do you define good?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Man is inherently good because he is made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), which means that he is a rational creature with an eternal soul, therefore he can’t be totally depraved.

What does “totally depraved” mean?

 

[Bishopite]

What does “totally depraved” mean?

Means that mans nature was so corupted after the fall of Adam and Eve, that everything man does is evil by nature and that man can do NO good whatsoever.
The problem with it is that man wasn’t totally corupted after the fall of Adam, but darkened in his nature, for man was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26) which means man still retained his rational nature and Spiritual eternal soul, ergo a pagan man can do some good, even though it isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace.

Here is a quote among others from a Reformed website…
“Sin has degraded man and made him a beast. It is true, he has the shape of a man, but alas! he is degenerated into a bestial and beastly nature. It is would be better to be a beast than to be like a beast, living and dying like one…” Ralph Venning
apuritansmind.com/TULIP/TotalDepravity.htm

Man is NOT a beast, some men act like beasts but they are acting in opposition to their inherent nature. Man isn’t a beast because he has a rational nature and God made him with the ability to know right from wrong. This is the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 2:14-16 where he says…
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. "
Man coudn’t be “totally depraved” and yet know right from wrong and he’s not because as Paul writes "the law [moral law or natural law of God]
is written on their hearts.

 

[Pax]

Do you believe unregenerate man is good?

There is nothing that the unregenerated man can do to please God. The regenerated man can, by way of God’s grace and justification, please God.

Man’s fallen nature is a really huge deal, but that does not make man basically evil. This is a matter of degree. Man is still made in the image and likeness of God. This is a good thing.

Read Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity. This is arguably the best work covering the fall that has ever been written. He explores the depths of the fall and it isn’t candy coated. The fallen nature of man is just that fallen. It is not created completely debased and evil. There is a difference.

 

[Pwrlftr]

There is nothing that the unregenerated man can do to please God. The regenerated man can, by way of God’s grace and justification, please God.

Man’s fallen nature is a really huge deal, but that does not make man basically evil. This is a matter of degree. Man is still made in the image and likeness of God. This is a good thing.

Read Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity. This is arguably the best work covering the fall that has ever been written. He explores the depths of the fall and it isn’t candy coated. The fallen nature of man is just that fallen. It is not created completely debased and evil. There is a difference.

I’ll start at the end and go to the beginning. I have never read Frank Sheed’s book but the doctrine of total depravity doesn’t mean that man is “created completely debased and evil”. I suppose as mentioned by Jimmy Aiken a better title for the doctrine would be “total inability”.

Which leads me to the first part of your post. I think I agree completely with your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph I agree w/ for the most part. I would say that the fall didn’t totally undo God’s creation and even unregerate man, by the grace of God, holds on to some truth.

 

[Joyousguard]

I’ll post again on Monday when i have more time. There seems to be one huge error in logic here that might be the cause of this that i’d like to try and clear up.

 

[Pax]

I’ll start at the end and go to the beginning. I have never read Frank Sheed’s book but the doctrine of total depravity doesn’t mean that man is “created completely debased and evil”. I suppose as mentioned by Jimmy Aiken a better title for the doctrine would be “total inability”.

Which leads me to the first part of your post. I think I agree completely with your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph I agree w/ for the most part. I would say that the fall didn’t totally undo God’s creation and even unregerate man, by the grace of God, holds on to some truth.

I have read Jimmy Akin’s book The Salvation Controversy at least three times. I agree with his analysis of the doctrine of Total Depravity but I think his very accurate definitions are only held by a small minority of knowledgeable Protestants. I think the term “total inability” is excellent. My problem with total depravity is that virtually every non-Catholic Christian that I have talked to thinks that man is basically evil.

I have asked many non-Catholics this simple question…“Is man basically good or basically evil?” I have yet to have even one of them answer that man is basically good. I even had one person tell me that he would never be convinced otherwise even though I provided him with some of the same scriptures that I listed earlier.

I believe that that there is an important distinction between stating that man has a fallen nature which saddles him with concupiscence vs. the idea that man is basically evil. I also believe that the doctrine of total depravity even when understood properly is still a bit imperfect. It simply goes too far and it plays into the idea of irresistable grace which is totally erroneous.

There is one more OT scripture that I would like to add to what I gave before.

Isaiah 43:4-5 says:

“Because you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you, I give men in return for you, peoples in exchange for your life. Fear not, for I am with you;”

If man is basically evil, please explain to me how God can say this of any man? And remember this is an OT verse.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Besides the estude religious deliberations I would like to add:
If man would be more evil than good, than we wouldn’t be here asking the question, because we would have destroyed each other already a long time ago. But we are here, asking the question. Hence it seems there is more good in us than evil.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I have read Jimmy Akin’s book The Salvation Controversy at least three times. I agree with his analysis of the doctrine of Total Depravity but I think his very accurate definitions are only held by a small minority of knowledgeable Protestants. I think the term “total inability” is excellent. My problem with total depravity is that virtually every non-Catholic Christian that I have talked to thinks that man is basically evil.

I haven’t read Aikens book but did read his his article “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” and thought he did a decent job w/ Total Depravity.

I agree with you that the term “total depravity” is not a good description of what the doctrine actually is and that total inability is a much, much better term.

I can’t say that I disagree with your assesment that “…virtually every non-Catholic Christian that I have talked to thinks that man is basically evil.”

I have asked many non-Catholics this simple question…“Is man basically good or basically evil?” I have yet to have even one of them answer that man is basically good. I even had one person tell me that he would never be convinced otherwise even though I provided him with some of the same scriptures that I listed earlier.

I would say that fallen man or unregenerate man is evil so I guess you can add me to your list. I haven’t read all your posts in detail so I can’t comment to any great extent on what you have already posted.

I believe that that there is an important distinction between stating that man has a fallen nature which saddles him with concupiscence vs. the idea that man is basically evil. I also believe that the doctrine of total depravity even when understood properly is still a bit imperfect. It simply goes too far and it plays into the idea of irresistable grace which is totally erroneous.

I’m not positive that it plays into the idea of irresistable grace. Can you explain?

There is one more OT scripture that I would like to add to what I gave before.

Isaiah 43:4-5 says:

“Because you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you, I give men in return for you, peoples in exchange for your life. Fear not, for I am with you;”

If man is basically evil, please explain to me how God can say this of any man? And remember this is an OT verse.

Why does it matter that it is an OT quote?
Isaiah 43:1-5:

But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. 2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. 3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you. 4 Because you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you, I give men in return for you, peoples in exchange for your life. 5 Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you.

I would say that the quote is not talking about every man but would apply to either Jacob or Israel. The above text is connected to the previous chapter and it’s pretty surprising too. It was there said that Jacob and Israel would not walk in God’s ways, and that when he corrected them for their disobedience they were stubborn and didn’t take it to heart.

I guess one could think that God would abandon them but he doesn’t. We see that God redeemed them. He did this even though many among them were obviously anything but good. Regardless of that, we see that God would continue his love and care for his people, and the body of that nation should still be reserved for mercy.

God doesn’t appear to do this because of any goodness possesed by them and as Paul says in Romans, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Means that (total depravity) mans nature was so corupted after the fall of Adam and Eve, that everything man does is evil by nature and that man can do NO good whatsoever.

Not exactly.

From Jimmy Aiken (popular Catholic apologist) we see that:
Tiptoe Through The TULIP:

Total depravity

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.[There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine,[That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term “radical corruption,” although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term “total inability.”] he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].

We see from the above that the Catholic church essentially agrees with the doctrine of total depravity despite it’s rather distasteful title. The doctrine does not mean that unregenerate man is incapable of helping an old lady across the street or that he would never work in a soup kitchen because he is to selfish to do so.

If you heard R.C. Sproul say “…that everything man does is evil by nature and that man can do NO good whatsoever.” wouldn’t it dawn on you that he had probably seen the worst of mankind doing some naturally good act? I mean the guy must be in his 50’s or 60’s, he was bound to witness some pretty awful people doing some good during his lifespan, right? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think there must be some kind of nuance or qualification to the statement?

For example, it would be very easy to conclude that when a Catholic is kneeling in prayer before a statue of Mary that he is in fact worshipping Mary and committing the sin of idolatry wouldn’t it? I mean at first glance it certainly appears to be idolatry doesn’t it? Taken out of context or with a partial knowledge of what is going on will allow one to come to all sorts of false conclusions.

The problem with it is that man wasn’t totally corupted after the fall of Adam, but darkened in his nature, for man was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26) which means man still retained his rational nature and Spiritual eternal soul, ergo a pagan man can do some good, even though it isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace.

How much good can he do without God’s grace? According to Jimmy A. man can’t do any supernatural good w/out God’s grace.

With God’s grace yes, a pagan can do some good, without God’s grace no supernatural good will come from unregenerate man.

Part II continued below::

 

[Pwrlftr]

Part II continued from above.

Here is a quote among others from a Reformed website…
“Sin has degraded man and made him a beast. It is true, he has the shape of a man, but alas! he is degenerated into a bestial and beastly nature. It is would be better to be a beast than to be like a beast, living and dying like one…” Ralph Venning
apuritansmind.com/TULIP/TotalDepravity.htm

Man is NOT a beast, some men act like beasts but they are acting in opposition to their inherent nature. Man isn’t a beast because he has a rational nature and God made him with the ability to know right from wrong. This is the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 2:14-16 where he says…
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. "

If you go back and take a more careful look at the website you would see that all of those quotes are addressed to fallen man. As I pointed out earlier……

Man coudn’t be “totally depraved” and yet know right from wrong and he’s not because as Paul writes "the law [moral law or natural law of God]
is written on their hearts.

Unregenerate man is affected by sin in his totality. It affects his body, his mind, and his soul and in essence, this is what the phrase “total depravity” means. It doesn’t mean that man is as evil as he could be or that he is incapable of any good act. It also does not mean that man lost everything created good in him after the fall. Sothe fact that man, even unregenerate man retains some of the good through the grace of God in no way disproves the fact that man is totally inable to so any good w/ out the help of God’s grace.

 

[Pax]

…
…

I would say that fallen man or unregenerate man is evil so I guess you can add me to your list. I haven’t read all your posts in detail so I can’t comment to any great extent on what you have already posted.
…
…

We are probably closer to agreeing with one another on this than my comments might suggest.

I’m not positive that it plays into the idea of irresistable grace. Can you explain?

I will give John Calvin credit for logical consistency in TULIP. Calvin claimed that God’s grace is irresistable. This is contrary to scripture, but it is necessary to complete TULIP and to remain consistent with total depravity. Calvinism sees man as passive and virtually inert when it comes to grace. Catholic theology recognizes the free will and cooperation of man in the response to grace. If man is not completely passive and virtually inert, then man can resist God’s grace. Calvin had to say that God’s grace is irresistable and that man is totally depraved or he would have suffered a serious inconsistency. That is how the two tie into one another.

Why does it matter that it is an OT quote?

It matters only in so far as mankind had not yet been redeemed. Regeneration in Christ Jesus was not in operation as it is in the NT. If I had only used NT verses the argument might be posed that the NT references were talking about regenerated Christians and not about men in general.

I would say that the quote is not talking about every man but would apply to either Jacob or Israel. The above text is connected to the previous chapter and it’s pretty surprising too. It was there said that Jacob and Israel would not walk in God’s ways, and that when he corrected them for their disobedience they were stubborn and didn’t take it to heart.

I guess one could think that God would abandon them but he doesn’t. We see that God redeemed them. He did this even though many among them were obviously anything but good. Regardless of that, we see that God would continue his love and care for his people, and the body of that nation should still be reserved for mercy.

God doesn’t appear to do this because of any goodness possesed by them and as Paul says in Romans, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”

I have no disagreement with most of what you’ve said here. It is interesting that you said that “God would continue his love and care for his people.” Please be advised that the OT is filled with examples of the “chosen people” doing God’s will and also turning from His will. The latter includes falling into idolatry. God usually warns them through the prophets and spanks them hard when they turn away. He abandons them to their own devices and their punishments are often severe.

Nevertheless, God loves his people. God loves his creation. What God has created has been damaged through the fall, but He still loves that which he has created. God does not love evil. If man was basically evil, God would not love man. Man is broken and sinful and he needs God’s mercy. I can agree with almost anything someone wants to say about the seriousness of the fall of Adam and Eve as long as it falls[pun intended] just short of saying that man is basically evil.

I hope this helps.

P.S. I like the way you present your views…they are well thought out and are done in charity.

 

[Bishopite]

[Pwrlftr;2981639]
Well, Akin does say that in his book “Salvation Controversy” I have it and read it. But I hope that you know, that some Calvinists say otherwise, in fact there are parts of Total depravity that Calvinists don’t agree.

"Genesis 6:5 "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man *was *

great in the earth, and *that *every imagination of the thoughts of his heart ***was ***only evil continually." This depravity begins at conception. It does not begin when we do something bad. We are not sinners because we sin, rather, we sin because we are sinners. Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Depravity of the heart is completely extensive so that the creature (us), cannot will to do any good. **All we do is evil. All we love is ourselves. We suppress God, and exalt ourselves. **
1. Fallen man cannot do or work any good:"
apuritansmind.com/TULIP/TotalDepravity.htm

Catholicism wouldn’t say this at all. In fact, I also have Ludwig Otts book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” and says that a pagan man CAN do good but that that good isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace.

We see from the above that the Catholic church essentially agrees with the doctrine of total depravity despite it’s rather distasteful title. The doctrine does not mean that unregenerate man is incapable of helping an old lady across the street or that he would never work in a soup kitchen because he is to selfish to do so.

Now herein lies the difference from Catholicism and Calvinism. Calvinism would say that God would NOT see any good in the act of the unregenerate man helping the old lady cross the street.
Catholicism would say that that man did a “good” in God’s eyes and it was a good, but certainly not a good that flows from God’s grace which means is was not a good that was from supernatural grace, yet it was a good in Gods view. You are saying man can do some good, but other Calvinists say he can’t do any good at all.

If you heard R.C. Sproul say “…that everything

man does is evil by nature and that man can do NO good whatsoever.” wouldn’t it dawn on you that he had probably seen the worst of mankind doing some naturally good act?
Right. That’s my point! Even though some Calvinists vehemantly argue that a pagan man can do NO good, reality shows that a pagan man can do a good. This is the problem with Total Depravity and of course there seems to be no direct nor specific explanation of it.

I mean the guy must be in his 50’s or 60’s, he was bound to witness some pretty awful people doing some good during his lifespan, right? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think there must be some kind of nuance or qualification to the statement?

I can’t say because I’ve not read nor heard him say otherwise. However, Matt Slick (Reformed Calvinist) claims that a pagan man can do NO good whatsoever without exception.
Look here to week #6 between Matt Slick (Reformed Calvinist) and Mark Bonocore (Catholic Apologist), listen to Matt Slicks version of Total Depravity and it IS precisely what I mentioned above.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=182755&highlight=Matt+Slick

For example, it would be very easy to conclude that when a Catholic is kneeling in prayer before a statue of Mary that he is in fact worshipping Mary and committing the sin of idolatry wouldn’t it? I mean at first glance it certainly appears to be idolatry doesn’t it? Taken out of context or with a partial knowledge of what is going on will allow one to come to all sorts of false conclusions.

Right, I agree with you wholeheartedly, however listen to Matt Slick or James White also who say man is totally corupted without any ability to do any good whatsoever. I know of another link of James White debating Fundamentalist Dave Hunt, both very much against Catholicism, and White uses the same argument as Matt Slick.

How much good can he do without God’s grace? According to Jimmy A. man can’t do any supernatural good w/out God’s grace.

Right again. I made that point earlier.

With God’s grace yes, a pagan can do some good, without God’s grace no supernatural good will come from unregenerate man.

Matt Slick, James White and many other Reformed Calvinists would disagree with you. They would say that in God’s eyes the pagan man deed wasn’t a good. So is it a good or not?

 

[Bishopite]

Granted, the quote you gave is pretty hyperbolic in nature but it appears your church’s view of fallen man isn’t all that much if any better than the most reformed of theologians.

Right, Thomistic Catholics are real close to Calvinists save a few things. One being that Calvinists say that unregenerate man can do no good. You say he can but other Calvinists i.e., Matt Slick, James White say otherwise.

Unregenerate man is affected by sin in his totality. It affects his body, his mind, and his soul and in essence, this is what the phrase “total depravity” means. It doesn’t mean that man is as evil as he could be or that he is incapable of any good act.

Well, I have heard other Calvinists say otherwise. Again listen to Reformed Apologist Matt Slick say otherwise with the link I gave above with Mark Bonocore. Even the pagan man in Gods eyes according to Slick and White does NO good whatsoever. All that he does is wicked/evil.

It also does not mean that man lost everything created good in him after the fall. Sothe fact that man, even unregenerate man retains some of the good through the grace of God in no way disproves the fact that man is totally inable to so any good w/ out the help of God’s grace.

You just explained the Catholic view. I have a good friend who graduated from Westminster Seminary with his Masters degree, he’s a Reformed pastor who says man can do no good at all.
Catholicism as Ott says in his book says, all men receive sufficient grace so that man can do good but it isn’t they type of good that is from supernatural grace therefore it is a natural good only which isn’t from God. If that man accepts God’s offer of grace (for God offers all men efficient grace) then that man will do supernatural good which is called efficacious grace.
Calvinism says that some are offered supernatural grace and others aren’t.
Catholics say all are given sufficient grace, and all are offered supernatural grace (efficacious grace) but some will not to accept it, others do but will not to keep it. Gods offers a gift of grace that is like a package and we have to open the gift and never deny He gave it to us.

 

[Bishopite]

[Pwrlftr;2981648]
If you go back and take a more careful look at the website you would see that all of those quotes are addressed to fallen man. As I pointed out earlier……

Unregenerate man is affected by sin in his totality. It affects his body, his mind, and his soul and in essence, this is what the phrase “total depravity” means. It doesn’t mean that man is as evil as he could be or that he is incapable of any good act. It also does not mean that man lost everything created good in him after the fall. Sothe fact that man, even unregenerate man retains some of the good through the grace of God in no way disproves the fact that man is totally inable to so any good w/ out the help of God’s grace.

I would like to again address this issue. I as a Catholic competely agree with your statement. However, I don’t think all Calvinists who affirm total depravity would agree.
The underlined portion (which is my doing) is what seems to be the problematic area; although, again I completely agree with you.

1. Some Calvinist’s say that unregenerate man is totally **incapable **of doing a or any good whatsoever and that all he chooses it always evil, ergo unsaved.
2. Some Calvnists, as you are saying, say this same unrengerate man **IS **capable of doing a good but obviously not the type of good that comes from God, ergo, that man is still unsaved.

Jimmy Akin uses the #2 Calvnists version to show that Catholics and some Calvinists are actually real close in their beliefs, and actually Thomistic Catholics are really close on the issue of how Gods grace operates within the human soul (but that’s another discussion, nonetheless). I can see how and why Akin does this and I very much agree with him.

The problem I’m trying to understand, and perhaps you could clarify this better for me, is that not all Calvinists agree on what “Total Depravity” specifically means!
I don’t have a problem that they don’t all agree IF Calvinists affirmed that total depravity wasn’t actually defined OR that their are differing versions within Calvinism of what it means.

You see, I’ve gone back and forth with some Calvinist who argue point #1, others point #2 as do you, but I’m trying to understand if there is A teaching on Total Depravity or are their differing versions within Calvinism, which is what I’m saying.

 

[Bishopite]

Pwrlftr;2981639]
How much good can he do without God’s grace? According to Jimmy A. man can’t do any supernatural good w/out God’s grace.

With God’s grace yes, a pagan can do some good, without God’s grace no supernatural good will come from unregenerate man.

Notice that Jimmy Akin says man can’t do any “supernatural good” but that doesn’t mean man can’t do a or any good, (and I’m not accusing you of saying he can’t), but man can only do “supernatural good” if God FIRST gives him the grace to do it. Actually man can’t do any good without God’s help for that matter.
The council of Orange (529) and the council of Trent also affirmed this in canon 6.

In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned Calvinist’s use of “common grace” vs Catholicism’s “sufficient grace” as both are very close in use of terms it seems, that deal with the pagan or unregenerate men.

You and I agree on this issue, but other Calvinists will say that Catholicism doesn’t agree with the Calvinist teaching on what they say “Total Depravity” means.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I don’t think all Calvinists who affirm total depravity would agree.

The underlined portion (which is my doing) is what seems to be the problematic area; although, again I completely agree with you.

1. Some Calvinist’s say that unregenerate man is totally **incapable **of doing a or any good whatsoever and that all he chooses it always evil, ergo unsaved.
2. Some Calvnists, as you are saying, say this same unrengerate man IScapable of doing a good but obviously not the type of good that comes from God, ergo, that man is still unsaved.

The problem I’m trying to understand, and perhaps you could clarify this better for me, is that not all Calvinists agree on what “Total Depravity” specifically means!

I don’t have a problem that they don’t all agree IF Calvinists affirmed that total depravity wasn’t actually defined OR that their are differing versions within Calvinism of what it means.

You see, I’ve gone back and forth with some Calvinist who argue point #1, others point #2 as do you, but I’m trying to understand if there is A teaching on Total Depravity or are their differing versions within Calvinism, which is what I’m saying.

I don’t know of anyone that says that unregenerate man is incapable of social virtue but then again, there is probably someone, somewhere out there that believes such a thing. Nor have I ever run across any theologian that took such an extreme view of the T in tulip, but with a few hundred million folks in the USA I’m sure there is at least one somewhere out there. Earlier you mentioned White and Slick and provided a link to one of them. I havne’t had the time to check that out so we will have to see what they say.

I believe the following from Spurgeon sums up Total Depravity about as consistent and well as anyone out there and seems to me to be the view held by the vast majority (99%?) of folks.

You can find it in its entireity at spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm

Here it is the first portion:

Spurgeon:

What Presbyterians really mean by terms such as “Original Sin,” “Total Depravity,” and “Inability of the Will” is defined by our Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 3: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."By original sin we mean the evil quality which characterizes man’s natural disposition and will. We call this sin of nature original, because each fallen man is born with it, and because it is the source or origin in each man of his actual transgressions. By calling it total, we do not mean that men are from their youth as bad as they can be. Evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, “deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Nor do we mean that they have no social virtues toward their fellowmen in which they are sincere. We do not assert with extremists that because they are natural men therefore all their friendship, honesty, truth, sympathy, patriotism, domestic love, are pretenses or hypocrisies. What our Confession says is, “That they have wholly lost ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.” The worst retain some, and the better much, ability of will for sundry moral goods accompanying social life. Christ teaches this (Mk. 10:21) when, beholding the social virtues of the rich young man who came kneeling unto him, He “loved him.” Christ could never love mere hypocrisies.1 What we teach is that by the fall man’s moral nature has undergone an utter change to sin, irreparable by himself. In this sense it is complete, decisive—or total.

I would say the above is the more common view of total inability or total depravity.

Next time you are talking to someone about this subject. Ask them if the worst of men are capable of doing any good (and here we are talking about natural or social good) whatsoever such as working in a soup kitchen or taking care of a sick relative.

If they say no, they are probably saying that as judged by God’s eyes/standard no act is morally perfect and therefore not good. On this subject, we seem to be sperated more by semantics than anything of substance. What exactly is the definition of “good”? Is an act only “good” if it is done 100% for God and for no other reason? Or is there a less stringent definition of “good”?

I don’t know if this helped but I hope it did.

 

[bogeydogg]

OK, let’s seperate John Calvin from the Calvinists. I think this is worthwhile since most Catholis would readily seperate St. Augustine from that most famous/infamous Augustinian Monk Martin Luther.

John Calvin never, Never, NEVER taught TULIP. TULIP, or the five points (5p) came about after his death. The systemitizing of Calvin’s teachings happened because a monk in the national church in Amsterdam named Arminius, had protested against Calvin’s theology and has introduced a system of theology called by his followers “The Five Points of Arminianism.” Essentially Arminians taught that man’s election was based on God’s fore-knowledge of whether or not man would except God’s grace and this was how man was elected. Calvin’s followers declared that this idea was ultimately a doctrine which taught that man had to give God permission to save him and that demeaned God. At the Synod of Dort Calvin’s followers formulated a theology based upon five point’s to stand against the five point teaching of the Arminians. That is where the 5p’s comes from.

I think both sides were wrong. As will inescapably happen everytime man tries to jump to God’s defense (as if God needs a defense) overstatement happens. I don’t believe for one second that atonement is limited anymore than I believe God has to beg us to be saved, although I have heard precisely this idea from some other protestant discussion boards. The idea is repugnant . God niether is some poor old guy trying his best to save everyone He can and neither is he some harsh task-master declaring that some are cut off before they are even born. Both ideas are wrong and think most here would agree with that.

But it is flatly wrong to attribute the 5p’s to Calvin so please let’s stop that.

So what did Calvin teach?