Is Man good or evil?

[bogeydogg]

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.”

This speaks more to foreordination that it does to a sinless prophet.

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.

Doesn’t David go on to say that God knew all of days before he was born which means God also knew that David would murder Uriah and adulter himself with Bathsheba? Doesn’t seem to me that David was righteous.

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.

Once again, any righteousness a man has is from God and not from himself.

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

It could be said that the Favor of the Lord falls on those whom he has justified, but I wish to point something out. When dealing with Proverbs one must remember that these are not prophetic promises because Amos declares the Lord to cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike. This is the very idea of general grace. Just because a man prospers does not mean he is good or favored by the Lord. It could be even that God will favor a wicked King to bring about His will, i.e. Nebbuchadnezzar.

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

This does not prove all men are good, it fact it asserts the opposite.

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)

See above.

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.

Once again, perfect observance of man’s understanding of the Law of God does not actually make a man sinless. It is only the divine who is sinless otherwise there would be no Savior and Pelagius would be right.

2 B Cont.

 

[bogeydogg]

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,

If Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Council who recognized Christ as Messiah then his actions are to be attributed to God’s grace and not his own righteousness. Remember that Jesus had just been crucified, the most evil act in history, and Joseph’s behavior is remarkable because he is the sole one who advocated for Christ in his death when even the Apostles had fled.

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

John was a Prophet and probably a Nazarite, however this only proves John was holy (set apart to God) and righteous in His calling by God and through God’s grace. Remember that if John were sinless then he would be fit to unlatch Christ’s sandal, but John declares he is not. Remember too, John stands out because he is a startling example of faith in a generation filled with apostasy. After all, Herod feared John because he didn’t want to execute (and John is in jail by this time) so clearly Herod, who has incestuously had his niece dancing naked on his lap, is not righteous.

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

Beautiful to God and perfect are not the same thing.

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

There are many sinful men who are saved and become filled with the Holy Spirit.

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

Once again, Creation in it’s original state was good, but because of Adam’s sin it is not good anymore. That is why Revelation unequivocally declares that the final restoration and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom will se a new Heaven and a new Earth the old having passed away. Even in Romans Paul declares that the Earth itself groans and awaits salvation. Creation was good, but it is not anymore.

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.

I did not say man is evil, I said man is fallen and therefore is not good. All of your examples of mankind’s goodness deal with individuals who are upright before God and yet even they require a Savior in Christ. There is no way around it. If any man had ever been perfect then the Church erred in declaring Pelagius to be a heretic, and the Church is pretty clear about it’s own infallibility.

 

[Pax]

I stand by my posts…you are making claims against the scriptures I quoted which are strawman arguments. I have not claimed that the individuals referred to in the quoted passages were sinless.

Read the title of the thread and read my posts. Man is not basically evil. You also “seem” to think that everything in creation is evil after the fall. This simply isn’t true and scripture attests to it. Please read 1 Timothy 4:4 over again. It says:

“For everything created by God is good,” Your comments on this verse do not refute the truth contained in it. Our fallen nature perverts things and yes the world was affected by the fall. None of that changes the basic goodness therein.

If there was no good in man and if man were “basically evil” God would not have sent His divine son Jesus to save us.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I stand by my posts…you are making claims against the scriptures I quoted which are strawman arguments. I have not claimed that the individuals referred to in the quoted passages were sinless.

Read the title of the thread and read my posts. Man is not basically evil. You also “seem” to think that everything in creation is evil after the fall. This simply isn’t true and scripture attests to it. Please read 1 Timothy 4:4 over again. It says:

“For everything created by God is good,” Your comments on this verse do not refute the truth contained in it. Our fallen nature perverts things and yes the world was affected by the fall. None of that changes the basic goodness therein.

If there was no good in man and if man were “basically evil” God would not have sent His divine son Jesus to save us.

Do you believe unregenerate man is good?

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

Once again, I did not say man is basically evil I said he is fallen and is not basically good because of his fall. I hate to sound like I’m straining the gnat and swallowing the Camel but I truly believe, and I think the Church teaches, that it is the fall and not God’s creation which is responsible for men’s nature. As such man’s darkened and foolish mind prevents him from being good because of his corrupted nature not because of God’s malevolence toward him.

1. 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.

OK, once again by your own admission Paul is not asserting that all men are good either so we must consider what the Apostle does mean. Since the verse quoted does indicate that he is referring to the “Fool” then who does Paul declare to be a “Fool”. Let’s go back to Romans 1.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

OK, so Paul opens up by saying that the Gospel is the very power of God, but not for everyone only for those who believe. Fair enough, this does not exclude either of our interpretations because if men are basically good or bad, Paul is saying that only some will be saved.

Rom 1:17 *For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith. *

So the Gospel is revealed from faith to faith or by the sharing of faith. Because faith is shared and is the power of salvation it causes the just to live by that faith. Now remember, you cannot say that all men are just because the Apostle is saying only those who are just will live and only those who are saved will live therefore only those who are saved are just.

Rom 1:18 *For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; *

OK, here the Apostle says that men hold truth, what ever that truth may be, in unrighteousness and for this reason they are under God’s wrath. However, Paul may be only asserting that only some men do this so the point is not made yet.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

Now to the truth in question, God has revealed Himself to these men who suppress truth in such a fashion that His existence is undeniable (manifest).

Rom 1:20 * For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: *

Now we come to it. God’s nature is known, says Paul, not to some but to, “the things that are made.” In other words, everything that is made knows that God exists. All men are made. All men know that God exists. Therefore, this suppression of truth is done by all men. For this reason, all men are without excuse.

2 B Cont.

 

[bogeydogg]

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Having established all men suppress the truth and are under wrath, the Apostle goes onto say that all men, keep in mind he has not yet mentioned sin, suppress the truth of God’s manifest existence and therefore become vain and their hearts become dark and foolish. Remember here that Jesus said Mat 15:18 and Mark 7:21 says that the evil of men begins in their hearts. Remember also that while Paul refers to men plurally he refers to the one heart of which all men share.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

So having this darkened heart all men become wise in their own eyes and then become fools. (Psalm 14)

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

This being the condition of all men, all men in their hearts are idolaters, that is they not only don’t worship God but they worship other things entirely. Truly you said, “The fool in his heart hath said ‘there is no God’” Here Paul makes it clear that everyone is a fool in this way. Then the Apostle stresses the point by saying…

Rom 1:24 * Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts…*

The Apostle is saying that; first all men suppress the truth of God’s manifest existence. Then, all men become vain and foolish in their hearts. Then, all men think themselves wise and become fools. Then, all men become idolaters. This idolatry is original sin. This is the curse of Adam. What was Adam’s sin? He knew what God’s manifest will was and deliberately disobeyed Him. We do the same thing because we are the children of Adam. Following this, only then, God gives us over to the lusts of our hearts. We do not become actual willful sinners, even though we are under the curse, until we have become fools and then God gives us over to sin. This is a crucially important idea because it is in this way that Mary could be born of men and yet not sin because God by His grace kept this initial idolatry from happening in her (so says Patrick Madrid) and thus she could be immaculate in her conception of Jesus.

1. 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.

But Romans 1 which is the beginning of Paul’s argument does.

1. 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.

I don’t mean any of these as angry words and I hope sincerely that they will not be taken as such. However I feel it is crucially important because we must understand the truth of ourselves and our standing before God before we can understand His word and have a right relationship with Him. To that end, I would like to say that what you have noticed is a paradox, which is not an actual contradiction but rather a perceived one. And, if I may be so bold, I think it is your misunderstanding of this which has led you to erroneously assert that men are basically good in actual contradiction to RCC teaching, tradition and Scripture.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I stand by my posts…you are making claims against the scriptures I quoted which are strawman arguments. I have not claimed that the individuals referred to in the quoted passages were sinless.

Read the title of the thread and read my posts. Man is not basically evil. You also “seem” to think that everything in creation is evil after the fall. This simply isn’t true and scripture attests to it. Please read 1 Timothy 4:4 over again. It says:

“For everything created by God is good,” Your comments on this verse do not refute the truth contained in it. Our fallen nature perverts things and yes the world was affected by the fall. None of that changes the basic goodness therein.

If there was no good in man and if man were “basically evil” God would not have sent His divine son Jesus to save us.

1 Timothy 4:1-5:

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Context is very important and nowhere in the above verses is Paul discussing the nature of man.

 

[Milliardo]

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.

Man is not evil; remember that God does not make evil. Man, by nature, is good, as God saw that all of creation is good. However, man is predisposed to sin, which was the point of Paul in Romans. Paul is not saying that man is evil, but that man is susceptible to sin. There is a big difference between saying that man is evil and that man is predisposed to sin. The former shows us that man itself is evil–which is nowhere in the Bible. The latter is the more Biblically correct view–than man is susceptible to sin and evil, but is himself not evil.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Man is not evil; remember that God does not make evil. Man, by nature, is good, as God saw that all of creation is good. However, man is predisposed to sin, which was the point of Paul in Romans. Paul is not saying that man is evil, but that man is susceptible to sin. There is a big difference between saying that man is evil and that man is predisposed to sin. The former shows us that man itself is evil–which is nowhere in the Bible. The latter is the more Biblically correct view–than man is susceptible to sin and evil, but is himself not evil.

Is unregenerate man good?

 

[Milliardo]

Is unregenerate man good?

I will turn to one favourite movie of mine, which is Star Wars, wherein Luke saw the good in Vader, which in itself is instructive, and paraphrase it: every man has good in him. That is why, as some here have already mentioned, we seek good. However, since we are also disposed to sin, we seek that which is contrary to good as well. But even man that is unregenerate, as you term it, has that goodness in him, as God has created him good, not evil. No man is evil by nature, or else that would plainly go against what God saw–that all creation is good.

 

[bogeydogg]

I stand by my posts…you are making claims against the scriptures I quoted which are strawman arguments. I have not claimed that the individuals referred to in the quoted passages were sinless.

Read the title of the thread and read my posts. Man is not basically evil. You also “seem” to think that everything in creation is evil after the fall. This simply isn’t true and scripture attests to it. Please read 1 Timothy 4:4 over again. It says:

“For everything created by God is good,” Your comments on this verse do not refute the truth contained in it. Our fallen nature perverts things and yes the world was affected by the fall. None of that changes the basic goodness therein.

If there was no good in man and if man were “basically evil” God would not have sent His divine son Jesus to save us.

Are you suggesting that there is more than one creation because the creation listed in the Bible fell with Adam? I freely admit that Creation was good when it was made, but now it is cursed and is something else.

I would also like to point out that you are trying to assert a truth concerning all humanity extrapolated from the exceptions and not the main rather than acknowledging these exception to be just that, exceptions, and not the main. But can we even call these exceptions “good”? I don’t think so and here’s why.

Remember also the rich young ruler who calls Jesus a “good teacher,” leading Jesus to ask why he calls Him good since, “only God is good.” The standard the Bible, much less Jesus apparently Himself, sets up for “goodness” is the goodness of God which is absolutely perfect and sinless in nature. To that end, no I flatly reject that men are good in this way. Also I would like to point out that civic righteousness is not Godly righteousness, even lions know to not eat each other (mostly) and I don’t think of them as being good, innocent but not volitionally good. People (mostly) also know to not eat each other but I hardly think that qualifies the whole of humanity as good.

 

[bogeydogg]

Man is not evil; remember that God does not make evil. Man, by nature, is good, as God saw that all of creation is good. However, man is predisposed to sin, which was the point of Paul in Romans. Paul is not saying that man is evil, but that man is susceptible to sin. There is a big difference between saying that man is evil and that man is predisposed to sin. The former shows us that man itself is evil–which is nowhere in the Bible. The latter is the more Biblically correct view–than man is susceptible to sin and evil, but is himself not evil.

You cannot assert that soemthing is good if it is also predisposed to evil.

 

[Milliardo]

Are you suggesting that there is more than one creation because the creation listed in the Bible fell with Adam? I freely admit that Creation was good when it was made, but now it is cursed and is something else.

It certainly does not mean though that man is evil; again, we go back to the premise of Paul, that man is predisposed to sin, but is not evil himself, or else again, as some already mentioned, God would not have seen any need to save man, as there would have been nothing in him worth saving.

Remember also the rich young ruler who calls Jesus a “good teacher,” leading Jesus to ask why he calls Him good since, “only God is good.” The standard the Bible, much less Jesus apparently Himself, sets up for “goodness” is the goodness of God which is absolutely perfect and sinless in nature.

That is true–Jesus said that because only God has that fullness of goodness in Him. However, that still does not prove that man is evil, or is inherently evil. At best, man is flawed, but not necessarily evil. To say man is evil is to say he is irredeemable–something that would negate the Cross in that regard.

 

[bogeydogg]

I will turn to one favourite movie of mine, which is Star Wars, wherein Luke saw the good in Vader, which in itself is instructive, and paraphrase it: every man has good in him. That is why, as some here have already mentioned, we seek good. However, since we are also disposed to sin, we seek that which is contrary to good as well. But even man that is unregenerate, as you term it, has that goodness in him, as God has created him good, not evil. No man is evil by nature, or else that would plainly go against what God saw–that all creation is good.

Yes, but Star Wars (which rocks) also asserts that good and evil flow from within individuals and that the power they wield is in itself neutral, and capable of being used for good or evil. The Bible does not teach this kind of idea anywhere, and neither does the Church.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I will turn to one favourite movie of mine, which is Star Wars, wherein Luke saw the good in Vader, which in itself is instructive, and paraphrase it: every man has good in him. That is why, as some here have already mentioned, we seek good. However, since we are also disposed to sin, we seek that which is contrary to good as well. But even man that is unregenerate, as you term it, has that goodness in him, as God has created him good, not evil. No man is evil by nature, or else that would plainly go against what God saw–that all creation is good.

I’m about to turn in for the night so I’ll try to make this coherent and short. I will probabl only accomplish one of these two goals…(short).

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.

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.

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.

That’s it for me. I’ll see you tomorrow.

 

[Milliardo]

You cannot assert that soemthing is good if it is also predisposed to evil.

The difference between something that is predisposed to evil and evil itself is that the former has this chance to be good, and indeed still has goodness in him. It is that man is flawed, but is still good in the eyes of God, since man is still His creation, and as such God still sees the inherent value of man. The latter, that man is evil himself, means that there is nothing of value in man in the eyes of God, and thus there would be nothing that would move Him to save us. Remember though that God was moved to save us because of His mercy for us–an indication that God saw the goodness in man, and was thus moved to save us because of that.

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

 

[Milliardo]

Yes, but Star Wars (which rocks) also asserts that good and evil flow from within individuals and that the power they wield is in itself neutral, and capable of being used for good or evil. The Bible does not teach this kind of idea anywhere, and neither does the Church.

ahem I was just using a quote from Star Wars to show more clearly my point–that there is this inherent goodness in man, even in his fallen nature, and thus is not evil.

 

[bogeydogg]

The difference between something that is predisposed to evil and evil itself is that the former has this chance to be good, and indeed still has goodness in him. It is that man is flawed, but is still good in the eyes of God, since man is still His creation, and as such God still sees the inherent value of man. The latter, that man is evil himself, means that there is nothing of value in man in the eyes of God, and thus there would be nothing that would move Him to save us. Remember though that God was moved to save us because of His mercy for us–an indication that God saw the goodness in man, and was thus moved to save us because of that.

Once again, I have not said that man is evil as St. Thomas defines evil. In fact, I explicitly denied it. However, having a chance to be good and actually being good, especially considering the Biblical standard for good, is not the same thing.

 

[Bishopite]

You cannot assert that soemthing is good if it is also predisposed to evil.

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.
Man is inherently good but corrupted in his nature by the sin of Adam so that what good he does isn’t the type of good that flows from God’s grace.
Calvinists use the term “common grace” to describe the type of good a pagan does.
Calvinists either borrowed the Catholic term “sufficient grace” and renamed it and reformulated it as “common grace” or deduced that pagan also do a “good” even though it isn’t a good that God sees as truly good. The only problem with this view is that “common good” is a type of good and of course all good comes from God alone.
Catholicism says that all people receive sufficient grace but this type of grace isn’t one that is salvific;only the elect receive efficacious grace which is salvific grace.

And then there is the problem with imputed justification which merely cloaks the person with the righteousness of Christ but doesn’t actually make the person a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) just gives them the affectations of being justified. Infused righteousness does both; it actually makes the person a new creation.