Is Man good or evil?

[bogeydogg]

Did Calvin teach that God’s will is such that it destroys man’s free will?

Calvin said that man not only can he necessarily will break the will of God.

Did Calvin teach that man can’t do anything good?

Calvin taught that man has a “civic righteousness”, that is man can obey laws, work in soup kitchens and help little old ladies across the street, but these actions do not necessarily speak to a salvific faith.

Did Calvin teach that man is totally depraved?

Nope, and neither btw does R.C. Sproul. Calvin taught, and he did so because S. Augustine taught, that man’s nature is so stricken by the fall that man cannot rise to salvific faith apart from the gace of God. As has been pointed out already, the RCC teaches this too.

This discussion has in some way’s devolved into a “Gotcha!” discussion which inevitably these things do with one side pointing out doctrine of the Church or Church fathers which supports the Calvinist position, I can be held guilty of this but I don’t think I’m a Calvinist but much closer in doctrine to a Catholic so it’s hard for me to see that but I can see how what I have said could be taken that way, and the other side pointing out various prtestant preachers who are way overboard on TULIP and say stupid erroneous things. However, those who are protestants on here do not subscribe to this view, as has been readily apparent by thier postings, and I think it’s unfair to hold up the lunatics of protestantism to the more moderate protestants and ask us to explain away thier luancy. It would be the equivalent of every protestant beginning every conversation with every Catholic with a discussion about replacement thology and it’s interpretation by a few in the Church to be justification for antisemitism. It’s just unfair.

So let us think carefully about what is being said here.

There is a question about whether or not man is basically good.

Those who say no have quoted Scripture and Tradition and Councils repeatedly to be rebuffed by those who disagree. So I will say this. All who are Caholic, go to your priest and ask him. Ask him if the Church teaches that man is basically good or does the Church teach that the Fall precludes this. Then read history and the CCC and find out if you will bring your thinking into line with the Church or of you will be heterodox. Only I caution you, the Church has always defined heretics as those who teach or believe doctrine outside the norm of Church teaching, and, upon having been corrected, refuse to be brought back into line with the teaching of the Mother Church.

I stand here without fear of being contradicted and indifferent to the ravings of those who teach error and are also protestants. I wonder, where do you stand?

 

[Bishopite]

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.

I agree with Spurgeon’s view and perhaps much of it is semantics.

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”?

Yes, thank you for the clarification and Spurgeons remarks. He was a great Reformed teacher in many respects and a holy man in many ways I’ve read also.
You have narrowed down what I believe is the issue with Catholics and Calvinists, which is what is a good in God’s eyes?

I think we are speaking of moral good not just any type of good wouldn’t you agree?
Some things are good without any morality involved. I believe Fish is good, but some people don’t; that a subjective good.

A moral good is that which mirrors God because God is completely good.

If a pagan (unregerate) man helps an old lady cross the street but does so for the sole reason to get her out of his way, then even though he wasn’t doing a good for the right reasons he still did a “good” in God’s eyes.
Now, because this pagan man did that good for his own selfishness and not by faith in Jesus nor for God’s glory his “good” isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace therefore it isn’t a supernatural good.
This is essentially what Mt 25:34-46 speaks about. Those is verses 34-40 are those who do good but NOT for their own glory; for Gods glory (spoken of by not exhaustively defined by Paul in 1 Cor 12-13)
Those in Mt 25:41-46 do some “good” in God’s eyes but not the type of good that flows from God, ergo there good is only natural good, not super-natural good which is required for salvation.
I would say that you would agree with what I said.

Anyway, I think what some Calvinists try to do is point out that unregenerate man can do no good, and some Calvinists still affirm that even the natural good isn’t a good in God’s eyes, but it IS a good, it is just done for selfish purposes.

Catholics try to point out that the unregenerate (pagan non-saved) man can do good but some Catholics will not correctly point out that this good isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace.

 

[Pax]

…

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.
…
…

Spurgeon’s summary is a good one. I disagree with your view, however, that 99% of the folks out there hold this view. This is slimply contrary to my experience. Spurgeon’s is a sophisticated and well articulated understanding that the average non-Catholic has probably never even heard. The most well informed Calvinist that I have engaged in discussion never expressed his views the way Spurgeon does. In fact he would have arguments with Spurgeon’s view of total depravity. Admittedly, I haven’t done any scientifically verifiable research to support my claim, but my experience with people runs contrary to your estimated statistics.

Here is something else to consider about the Calvinist concept of total depravity and what I consider to be its tendency to excess.

This is taken from James Buchannan on justification by faith alone. James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.

The Westminster statement on justification says:

“Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, **God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted **to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

What I have put in bold and underlined is part of mainline non-Catholic teaching and it is an outgrowth of “total depravity” as understood in non-Catholic circles. In their view man is indeed basically evil and regeneration is seemingly a myth. I find this all highly problematic and contrary to scripture.

 

[Bishopite]

Spurgeon’s summary is a good one. I disagree with your view, however, that 99% of the folks out there hold this view. This is slimply contrary to my experience. Spurgeon’s is a sophisticated and well articulated understanding that the average non-Catholic has probably never even heard. The most well informed Calvinist that I have engaged in discussion never expressed his views the way Spurgeon does. In fact he would have arguments with Spurgeon’s view of total depravity. Admittedly, I haven’t done any scientifically verifiable research to support my claim, but my experience with people runs contrary to your estimated statistics.

Here is something else to consider about the Calvinist concept of total depravity and what I consider to be its tendency to excess.

This is taken from James Buchannan on justification by faith alone. James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.

The Westminster statement on justification says:

“Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, **God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted **to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

What I have put in bold and underlined is part of mainline non-Catholic teaching and it is an outgrowth of “total depravity” as understood in non-Catholic circles. In their view man is indeed basically evil and regeneration is seemingly a myth. I find this all highly problematic and contrary to scripture.

Yes, you make a very good point here.
Imputed justification isn’t an intrinsic renewal at all, just having the affectations of being a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17) without actually making the person a new creation within. Total depravity is linked to justification.
Also, I think the one of the fundamental differences between Calvinists and Catholics is how they view the essential nature of God.
Catholics say God is primarily love, man is essentially good but corrupted by sin.
Calvinists say God is primarily sovereign, man is essentially evil totally depraved (however they define that term) by sin.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I agree with Spurgeon’s view and perhaps much of it is semantics.

Yes, thank you for the clarification and Spurgeons remarks. He was a great Reformed teacher in many respects and a holy man in many ways I’ve read also.

You have narrowed down what I believe is the issue with Catholics and Calvinists, which is what is a good in God’s eyes?

I think we are speaking of moral good not just any type of good wouldn’t you agree?

Some things are good without any morality involved. I believe Fish is good, but some people don’t; that a subjective good.

A moral good is that which mirrors God because God is completely good.

If a pagan (unregerate) man helps an old lady cross the street but does so for the sole reason to get her out of his way, then even though he wasn’t doing a good for the right reasons he still did a “good” in God’s eyes.

Now, because this pagan man did that good for his own selfishness and not by faith in Jesus nor for God’s glory his “good” isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace therefore it isn’t a supernatural good.
This is essentially what Mt 25:34-46 speaks about. Those is verses 34-40 are those who do good but NOT for their own glory; for Gods glory (spoken of by not exhaustively defined by Paul in 1 Cor 12-13)

Those in Mt 25:41-46 do some “good” in God’s eyes but not the type of good that flows from God, ergo there good is only natural good, not super-natural good which is required for salvation.
I would say that you would agree with what I said.

Anyway, I think what some Calvinists try to do is point out that unregenerate man can do no good, and some Calvinists still affirm that even the natural good isn’t a good in God’s eyes, but it IS a good, it is just done for selfish purposes.

Catholics try to point out that the unregenerate (pagan non-saved) man can do good but some Catholics will not correctly point out that this good isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace.

I only have a few minutes tonight but pretty much agree w/ what you are saying.

I definitely agree with you when you say “You have narrowed down what I believe is the issue with Catholics and Calvinists, which is what is a good in God’s eyes?”

So far this has been a pretty good discussion, we will continue later.

Thanks.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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

Thanks. Most everyone here at CAF has been great but I have an ignore button and I ain’t afraid to use it .

 

[Pax]

 

[Joyousguard]

Let us look for a moment at all non-christian cultures. If man is evil why are these societies and cultures not tearing themselves apart at the seams? Granted many of them are experiencing great problems, but shouldn’t pakistan be nuking India right now and China and Russia marching all over the world? If man is evil and only brought back to the correct path by Jesus Christ, does anyone find it a bit unusual that things in other countries are realitively calm considering many countries are populated by alot of evil men who have not been saved by Christ?

Our country isn’t perfect by any means but when you look at many other countries around the world they should constantly be in a state of civil war or some sort of genocide. All middle eastern countries are populated by evil men who do not, nor may ever, know the love and salvation of Christ. I guess we better prepare for the inevitable conflict with Iran then? Evil men with nuclear weapons? How about North Korea? An ever more Islamic and atheistic Europe?

There are horrific actions going on in some non-christian countries but nothing to the scale and intensity you would expect judging by the possible belief of “total depravity” of all mankind.

I think many of us have met good people who have not been baptized nor do they know Christ (except perhaps mysteriously for who knows the mind and all actions of God?). Are these good people actualy evil and thus pretending to be good or simply hiding there evil actions? Are they actualy evil people pretending to do good works? I think after awhile their disquises fall through and the fruit from their efforts would eventual show to be rotten.

How many persons in this world are not baptized and do not know Christ? Obviously the number of non -christains is greater than christians. This is an awful lot of evil people out there.

 

[bogeydogg]

It’s a fair point if one believes; that Total Depravity is a true doctrine, and that it means that all men are as evil as they can possibly be. If that was true then the 5p’s believers would have some ‘splainin’ to do.

I am not a 5p’s believer and feel no necessary compulsion to defend them.

However, I think we must point out that Calvin himself argued for a civic righteousness. Those who would interpret his teachings to mean that man is abjectly evil have no way to justify thier belief based upon the whole of Calvin’s work anymore than those who claim the idea comes from St. Augustine.

No man is as evil as he possibly can be that is not what the idea means. It means that apart from the special intervention of grace by God no man could or would be saved because his fallen nature precludes him from correctly understanding who he is and what his relationship to God is.

This also does not mean that God withholds His grace. I think most every Christian would believe in the idea of God’s general grace. I think Paul’s argument in Romans 1 makes it plain that God makes available to all men some measure of grace by which it is possible to believe. It is we, in our foolishness, that refuses God’s free offer of grace.

I think T/D was a way that Calvin’s followers could explain a very complex idea in a simple way to be easily believed. I also think that this narrowing down of doctrine has led to much error and confusion.

 

[bogeydogg]

There is a question about whether or not man is basically good.

Those who say no have quoted Scripture and Tradition and Councils repeatedly to be rebuffed by those who disagree. So I will say this. All who are Caholic, go to your priest and ask him. Ask him if the Church teaches that man is basically good or does the Church teach that the Fall precludes this. Then read history and the CCC and find out if you will bring your thinking into line with the Church or of you will be heterodox. Only I caution you, the Church has always defined heretics as those who teach or believe doctrine outside the norm of Church teaching, and, upon having been corrected, refuse to be brought back into line with the teaching of the Mother Church.

I stand here without fear of being contradicted and indifferent to the ravings of those who teach error and are also protestants. I wonder, where do you stand?

This came out a lot harsher than I meant it to. I did not mean to say that all those who disagree with me are heretics, unfortunately that’s what I said. So please allow me to apologize and explain.

I believe that Scripture, ECF’s, Councils, and the teaching of the CCC all teach that fallen man’s nature is not basically good. I want to defend the dignity of the arms of Church teaching as well as the Church’s right to tell us what we must believe. When I see deviation I am concerned and will vigorously defend Tradition, Scripture and Council teaching.

However, I do sometimes overstate me position, or do so with too much vehemence and in those cases I don’say things the way I want to say them. I do think though that we should consult our teachers in the faith and see what they say. I think it would be very instructive to do so, and yes this applies to me too.

 

[Xpi]

There is no absolute evil, evil being an absence of a good that ought to be present, for in no case is all good absent, even with regard to the fallen angelic beings. This is so because being itself is a good, created and sustained by God Who can do no evil. Those would-be reformers erred in holding man to be utterly depraved and devoid of any good; the light of being remains ever burning.

 

[Joyousguard]

No man is as evil as he possibly can be that is not what the idea means. It means that apart from the special intervention of grace by God no man could or would be saved because his fallen nature precludes him from correctly understanding who he is and what his relationship to God is.

If I am to understand the logic here, that total depravity (in this context) which is man’ s fallen nature inhibiting his ability to understand himself and God? Man’s “evil nature”, no matter what proportion to his “good nature” it might theoreticaly be, would then be a result of our inability to understand God and thus His will? Mankind’s moral depravity is the inability for us to see what God’s will is or His sense of justice and morality and thus we enage in evil acts and in turn could be considered to be evil (to some degree or another)?

So man is evil because of ignorance? Man does not intentionaly choose evil but rather mistakenly chooses what they believe to be the good. If anything, they choose something which is evil because of this moral depravity and thus as a result of ignorance rather than true intent.

Suppose a baby throws a ball and it kills another human being because of just right circumstances. Is this child guilty of murder? The obvious answer is no, but what if I asked “Is this child evil?” and this action simply refelcts that evil. If mankind really is evil then it could come to reason that a baby killing a man with a ball was done as a result of that child being evil. Even if we go to an example of the less probable, “a baby smacking a person” which I think we all know does happen. Did this child perform this action because the child was evil or did they simply do it out of ignorance? Does anyone want to look into a baby’s eyes and tell me this child is evil?

Evil is not like a piece of pie where it is segragated from the whole but rather the powder for a Kool Aid mix. The mix goes into the water and changes the color of everything. Even though the vast majority of what is in the cup is water, never the less the water is now red.

God is infinite, man is finite. One could spend an eternity learning about God and still come up in ignorance. Mankind is very slow learners and sometimes it might even take pains of hell to help get it through our thick heads as to what is truly good.

Look at a bank robber. This man spends five years planning the perfect robbery. When he’s caught, the prosecution would point to the fact that this robbery was premeditated and not a spur of the moment deed. This would no doubt lead to an increased sentence. The question is, “Did the man know and understand what he was doing?” I think most of us would answer “yes” because its clear that the man took five years to plan the robbery and you don’t spend five years without looking at the morality of a situation. I would say that for legal standards he proably knew what he was doing, but in reality, if he really knew what he was doing he would not have done it in the first place. This does not release him of responsibility but does lessen all of humanities culpability.

Does a murderer truly know what they are doing? Does a bank robber or rapist? I would say, that if they truly knew what they were doing, or knew what they were doing was really wrong, they would not do it to begin with. In fact they try to justify, and in their own minds may very well suceed, it as percieved good rather than something that could be considered evil.

Man does not choose to do evil but rather chooses what they percieve to be good. They do this for varying degrees of reasons but mostly because of ignorance.

Humanity isn’t evil. Stupid, naive and ignorant, probably, but not evil.

 

[Bishopite]

Let us look for a moment at all non-christian cultures. If man is evil why are these societies and cultures not tearing themselves apart at the seams? Granted many of them are experiencing great problems, but shouldn’t pakistan be nuking India right now and China and Russia marching all over the world? If man is evil and only brought back to the correct path by Jesus Christ, does anyone find it a bit unusual that things in other countries are realitively calm considering many countries are populated by alot of evil men who have not been saved by Christ?

You make a good point and I understand what you are saying.
In one sense though, those nations you mention aren’t attacking each other because of God’s sovereignty; He is in control of all things and doesn’t allow them to war to the degree to destroy their neighbor because of His overall salvific plan.
On man, I would say is that man is fundamentally good in the sense that his nature was made in the image and likeness of God (that his rational and eternal nature were left intact).
However, because of the fall man is corrupted and doesn’t do good to God’s standard which can only come by His supernatural grace.

I would say that God’s essence is one of love not of wrath, or of sovereignty (those flow from His love and are manifestations of His love) and that all that He does flows from and is because of His love.
God allows people to choose hell because of His love; that sound shocking to some but I believe this is what the Bible teaches.

 

[Joyousguard]

You make a good point and I understand what you are saying.
In one sense though, those nations you mention aren’t attacking each other because of God’s sovereignty; He is in control of all things and doesn’t allow them to war to the degree to destroy their neighbor because of His overall salvific plan.
On man, I would say is that man is fundamentally good in the sense that his nature was made in the image and likeness of God (that his rational and eternal nature were left intact).
However, because of the fall man is corrupted and doesn’t do good to God’s standard which can only come by His supernatural grace.

I would say that God’s essence is one of love not of wrath, or of sovereignty (those flow from His love and are manifestations of His love) and that all that He does flows from and is because of His love.
God allows people to choose hell because of His love; that sound shocking to some but I believe this is what the Bible teaches.

I would never dispute God’s sovereignty and do believe He is in complete control. My analysis is merely to say that there should be much more destruction an evil in this world (not to say that there isn’t enough to begin with) if man was evil and Christ was the only solution. I have often come across very good people who don’t believe in God and it makes you wonder as to how much God works in everyone’s life to a certain extent but more so in the lives of those who believe and are baptized.

Is man good because of his nature or is man good because God intervenes and keeps him good? I think this thread has shown that man is good by his very nature with God adding to that in a positive way. Good is stronger than evil and I think this keeps many societies in the world from collapsing under evil actions.

It is an interesting, as you have noted, to watch God work in countries and societies that are atheistic or non-christain. While it is evident that man is good but their actions may lead to evil by ignorance or weak will it is comforting to see God in control. It is impossible to deny they presence of God in the unbaptized or non-christain even if this presence is not nearly to the degree as those who are baptized and do believe.

Man’s intent is always to do good, but we do not always know what is really good and what is a false good until we have God present in our lives.

 

[Bishopite]

I would never dispute God’s sovereignty and do believe He is in complete control. My analysis is merely to say that there should be much more destruction an evil in this world (not to say that there isn’t enough to begin with) if man was evil and Christ was the only solution. I have often come across very good people who don’t believe in God and it makes you wonder as to how much God works in everyone’s life to a certain extent but more so in the lives of those who believe and are baptized.

Is man good because of his nature or is man good because God intervenes and keeps him good? I think this thread has shown that man is good by his very nature with God adding to that in a positive way. Good is stronger than evil and I think this keeps many societies in the world from collapsing under evil actions.

It is an interesting, as you have noted, to watch God work in countries and societies that are atheistic or non-christain. While it is evident that man is good but their actions may lead to evil by ignorance or weak will it is comforting to see God in control. It is impossible to deny they presence of God in the unbaptized or non-christain even if this presence is not nearly to the degree as those who are baptized and do believe.

Man’s intent is always to do good, but we do not always know what is really good and what is a false good until we have God present in our lives.

You’ve made your point clearer and I agree with what you are saying. As I read your post, it made me think of Mother Theresa and how she in her devout love for every person, saw Jesus in the most neglected; those whom society had rejected.
I would be correct to say that virtually all of those she helped in India were not Christian, not baptized yet she saw Jesus in them what God had created in them at their birth, a rational soul with an eternal spirit.

 

[bogeydogg]

If I am to understand the logic here, that total depravity (in this context) which is man’ s fallen nature inhibiting his ability to understand himself and God? Man’s “evil nature”, no matter what proportion to his “good nature” it might theoreticaly be, would then be a result of our inability to understand God and thus His will? Mankind’s moral depravity is the inability for us to see what God’s will is or His sense of justice and morality and thus we enage in evil acts and in turn could be considered to be evil (to some degree or another)?

So man is evil because of ignorance? Man does not intentionaly choose evil but rather mistakenly chooses what they believe to be the good. If anything, they choose something which is evil because of this moral depravity and thus as a result of ignorance rather than true intent.

Man does not choose to do evil but rather chooses what they percieve to be good. They do this for varying degrees of reasons but mostly because of ignorance.

Humanity isn’t evil. Stupid, naive and ignorant, probably, but not evil.

St. Augustine’s p.o.v. was that man, because of the fall, has a nature which is fallen. Due to this nature, he does not see things as they really are. In this state, man cannot achieve Godly righteousness but rather chases after his own selfish and fleshly desires. Because of this, so says Augustine, man is evil.

OK…

My first post on this thread was sort of tounge-in-cheek. I said that man was “evil” but did not mean that “man is absolutely evil and is as bad as he could possibly at all times and in all ways.” In fact I have shirked the use of the word since that first post because I think it caused some confusion.

I believe that evil exists. I believe that the only being who is evil absolute is Satan. I do not believe that man is essentially evil, I believe that man is essentially fallen and therefore cannot be considered to be “good”.

In the way that the fall affects man’s nature I think, as said St. Paul, that man sees through a glass darkly. That is, that men, all men, have a fallen nature which precludes them doing that which is truly righteous on thier power. So in a sense, yes man does a great many wicked things because he is ignorant of his Creator. However, man cannot be absolved from this because Rom 1 asserts that man first deliberately turns his back on God and then sins. I believe that the nature of original sin is this conscious willful turning away from God which St. Paul declares all men do.

In this way, I think your assertion that men seek to do what is good is true. However, because of the fall of Adam, man’s nature is such that in even to seek that which is good, “Seek pleasure avoid pain,” man does not do that which is truly righteous, “Seek God, His kingdom and His righteousness.” Because of this all men are fallen and without the intervention of Grace (which RCC and most Protestant Churches agree on) man will not, and thus cannot, do that which please God in an eternal and truly righteous way.

 

[Joyousguard]

My first post on this thread was sort of tounge-in-cheek. I said that man was “evil” but did not mean that “man is absolutely evil and is as bad as he could possibly at all times and in all ways.” In fact I have shirked the use of the word since that first post because I think it caused some confusion

. Look into the eyes of a baby, baptized or not, and ask yourself if evil exists there? While I do believe as you do that “man is not all that he could possibly be” I believe that the word “good” should be inserted here instead of “evil”. If a man gives twice but steals once, is he evil? If a man saves three lives but takes four is he good? If a man does 40% good deeds and 60% bad is he an evil person? What percentage of his being and actions must be good or evil for this man to be such?

“We are what we repeatedly do” Aristotle once said. A man who repeatedly lies is a liar, a man who repeatedly steals is a thief. Men seek the good and sometimes the false good. The act of seeking is an action in of itself. So what are men who repeatedly seek the good called?

I

believe that evil exists. I believe that the only being who is evil absolute is Satan. I do not believe that man is essentially evil, I believe that man is essentially fallen and therefore cannot be considered to be “good”.

In order for us “to do” we must first “be”. “Being” is much more difficult then “doing”. Actions are a result of “being” first. In essence a good person never needs to think about doing something good because it naturaly happens by itself even if it needs a bit of prying. Man’s action of desiring the good must be first preceeded by man’s “being” good.

In the way that the fall affects man’s nature I think, as said St. Paul, that man sees through a glass darkly. That is, that men, all men, have a fallen nature which precludes them doing that which is truly righteous on thier power.

God is the only one who does anything perfect. Does an action of man must be perfect to be good?

So in a sense, yes man does a great many wicked things because he is ignorant of his Creator. However, man cannot be absolved from this because Rom 1 asserts that man first deliberately turns his back on God and then sins. I believe that the nature of original sin is this conscious willful turning away from God which St. Paul declares all men do.

There is a question of culpability. Even those who study and recieve the sacraments regularly and by all accounts hsould know right from wrong and what is a rejection of God’s will still succumb to temptation and do bad things. For most it can be a brief lax in will or a brief lax in genrosity, love and understanding for it is diffciult for us to do these things always and continualy. It may be the result of our fallen nature that these things continualy plague or existence. However, is our fallen nature the result of our own responsibility? We all bare the initial punishment for Adam and Eve and as a result have lost many of our natural faculties but do we bare responsibility for the actions that led to this punishment? We do continue to do wrong and reject God partly from ignorance but partly from the result of original sin. Our we completely guilty of knowing exactly what we do at all times regardless of whether we should know better?

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

In this way, I think your assertion that men seek to do what is good is true. However, because of the fall of Adam, man’s nature is such that in even to seek that which is good, “Seek pleasure avoid pain,” man does not do that which is truly righteous, “Seek God, His kingdom and His righteousness.” Because of this all men are fallen and without the intervention of Grace (which RCC and most Protestant Churches agree on) man will not, and thus cannot, do that which please God in an eternal and truly righteous way.

In this world, we can not always guarantee that all our efforts will be successful. However, we do have a large amount of control over the effort itself. Manalways seeks that which is good, but good and “false” good can sometimes be difficult to distinguish. The desire of man is simple, “To seek the good”. This is man’s nature. However, thatwhich is considered “good” may be very subjective in our own ignorance.

I.E. A man seeks wealth (false good in this case, not wealth of family etc. but gold). Man seeks the good he percieves in having money and the stuff that goes with it. Thus he sets about his efforts to gain this wealth. This percieved good is in fact a false good. However, how responsible is this man for seeking this false good? While the culpability/responsibility may vary on the circumstances, his desire was in the right place he merely sought the wrong means to obtain the wrong ends. In his own understanding and reasoning, limited depending upon grcae from God as well as his own person efforts to learn and understand, he saw a good. It’s a lot like a 4 year old who gives his mother flowers for her birthday only for her to find out that her son pulled the from her own prized garden. I have given my mother many a bouquet of dandilions in my day Many people should know better but our guilt and responsibility is almost never without some degree of a 5 year old thinking within us.

 

[Bishopite]

[bogeydogg;3001140]St. Augustine’s p.o.v. was that man, because of the fall, has a nature which is fallen. Due to this nature, he does not see things as they really are. In this state, man cannot achieve Godly righteousness but rather chases after his own selfish and fleshly desires. Because of this, so says Augustine, man is evil.

Right, because St. Augustine was in his time dealing with pelagianism which essentially said man on his own goodness could do good without God’s grace given to him first. That’s why as I’m sure you know, how St. Augustine used man being evil; he didn’t use it in the Calvinist sense, certainly NOT to the extent that John Calvin used it.

OK…

My first post on this thread was sort of tounge-in-cheek. I said that man was “evil” but did not mean that “man is absolutely evil and is as bad as he could possibly at all times and in all ways.” In fact I have shirked the use of the word since that first post because I think it caused some confusion.

Sure the word “evil” needs clarification because of the wide semantical uses of the word.

I believe that evil exists. I believe that the only being who is evil absolute is Satan. I do not believe that man is essentially evil, I believe that man is essentially fallen and therefore cannot be considered to be “good”.

What you’ve described is essentially what Catholicism teaches.
I guess what I’m asking is what constitutes a “good?”
We agree that all good comes from God, correct?
So even though a pagan man does a “good” on a human level as Paul uses the “natural man”, still does a “good” just is not the type of good that is supernatural good.

Pagan man can do a good but it is NOT a supernatural good directly from God’s supernatural grace given after the fall.
But even the good he does is still a “good” in the lowest sense (for a lack of better words) but it is a good and even though it is the lowest type of good, that pagan man receieved the ability to even do that type of good from God (Rom 2:14-16) which I believe shows man essentially being good, because he was made good (Gen 1:29) and yet his nature is fallen because of the fall.

In the way that the fall affects man’s nature I think, as said St. Paul, that man sees through a glass darkly. That is, that men, all men, have a fallen nature which precludes them doing that which is truly righteous on thier power. So in a sense, yes man does a great many wicked things because he is ignorant of his Creator. However, man cannot be absolved from this because Rom 1 asserts that man first deliberately turns his back on God and then sins. I believe that the nature of original sin is this conscious willful turning away from God which St. Paul declares all men do.

In this way, I think your assertion that men seek to do what is good is true. However, because of the fall of Adam, man’s nature is such that in even to seek that which is good, “Seek pleasure avoid pain,” man does not do that which is truly righteous, “Seek God, His kingdom and His righteousness.” Because of this all men are fallen and without the intervention of Grace (which RCC and most Protestant Churches agree on) man will not, and thus cannot, do that which please God in an eternal and truly righteous way.

Sure well put.

 

[bogeydogg]

. Look into the eyes of a baby, baptized or not, and ask yourself if evil exists there?

I would suggest that if you have ever taken a toy from a small child you would see a reaction of murderous rage. I have a 3y.o. and a 5 y.o. and I am telling without shame that those two would kill me on the spot if they could when they are mad at me. The human animal wihout the restrictions of culture and training would be dangerous indeed. In fact, it the absence of restriction on wants and desire which makes the sociopaths which commit the most heinous of crimes in our society. I’m not saying that I think children are evil, I am saying that they are naturally selfish, criminal little things who exist only to please themselves and their desires of the passing moment.

.While I do believe as you do that “man is not all that he could possibly be” I believe that the word “good” should be inserted here instead of “evil”. If a man gives twice but steals once, is he evil? If a man saves three lives but takes four is he good? If a man does 40% good deeds and 60% bad is he an evil person? What percentage of his being and actions must be good or evil for this man to be such?

James 2:10, For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

If I understand you correctly here, you are saying that a man is good if he is good more often than he is bad. On a human horizontal level then I can see how you would think that. Coincidentally, it is no suprise that most pagan (fictional) religions argue for judgment as a weighing of scales because this is how men judge each other. But I am not in the least concerned with what man thinks. Almighty God has declared that if we commit even one tiny little minor minute insignificant sin then we, according to His Law, are on par with murderers, rapists and Nazi’s. There is no special sin with God. Sin is sin period and no man may enter into the presence of God without his sins being covered and forgiven. Period.

.“We are what we repeatedly do” Aristotle once said. A man who repeatedly lies is a liar, a man who repeatedly steals is a thief. Men seek the good and sometimes the false good. The act of seeking is an action in of itself. So what are men who repeatedly seek the good called?

If he seeks that rigteousness according to the Spirit of the living God then I would say he is a Christian. If he seeks it according to his own power alone then I would say he is a huamnist and a pagan and is lost no matter how much good he does.
Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

In order for us “to do” we must first “be”. “Being” is much more difficult then “doing”. Actions are a result of “being” first. In essence a good person never needs to think about doing something good because it naturaly happens by itself even if it needs a bit of prying. Man’s action of desiring the good must be first preceeded by man’s “being” good.

If we view good as being good in the flesh then you are right. But being truly righteous and pleasing to God we have no hope in our own being because the nature of our being is fallen.

There is a question of culpability. Even those who study and recieve the sacraments regularly and by all accounts hsould know right from wrong and what is a rejection of God’s will still succumb to temptation and do bad things. For most it can be a brief lax in will or a brief lax in genrosity, love and understanding for it is diffciult for us to do these things always and continualy. It may be the result of our fallen nature that these things continualy plague or existence. However, is our fallen nature the result of our own responsibility? We all bare the initial punishment for Adam and Eve and as a result have lost many of our natural faculties but do we bare responsibility for the actions that led to this punishment? We do continue to do wrong and reject God partly from ignorance but partly from the result of original sin. Our we completely guilty of knowing exactly what we do at all times regardless of whether we should know better?

Once again, it is the way which God sees us. If God is not holy not righteous or just then surely we can count on a sliding scale of judgment, but if God is Holy and righteous and just then we have a real problem, and I thank God that we have a advocate who can carry His righteousness before God and pray for me that I may stand before my God as His possesion and be declared righteous because of Him and not me. For if I or you or anyone else wants to stand before God on own, then we may rest assured that we will. However, when we do we will most certainly do so to our own destruction, we will face God and surely perish.