How Evil Are We?

[Rey Reynoso]

This came up in another thread in regards to the Problem of Pain and Evil. Total Depravity teaches that the entire man is depraved with sin, tainted with evil, although in action not as evil as the man could be. Paul's argument in Romans 3 comes up a lot to shed light on this.

Was Paul exaggerating to make his point? Do we subsequently explain Total Depravity of man in a wrong way?

[Joanie D.]

But Leslie, what about the non-Christian that dies saving a person? What did he or she get out of that? Thanks.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Cathrynn said:

I have trouble using the word evil - can someone explain to me an evil act, other than murdering someone. What smaller act of selfishness could be considered 'evil'?

I consider evil to be the opposite of good. God is good. Not-God is evil. Anything contrary to Him is evil. There are *degrees* of evil, as some acts are more haneous than others, but they are all still evil. Ultimately, with every choice we make, there is the right/good one and the wrong/evil one. That may be too simplistic for some, but the way I see it, it is either God's way or my own, and I'm much more inclined to believe that it if *His* way that isn't the evil choice. D.

[Leslie Jebaraj]

I wouldn't really know. All I know is what the Bible teaches about us ... we are not a good bunch of people, as we think. The length God went to redeem us is proof enough for us to really realize that we are helpless and hopeless in and of ourselves. Romans 1-3 is a classic study.

Joanie D. said:

But Leslie, what about the non-Christian that dies saving a person? What did he or she get out of that? Thanks.

[ScottL]

Apolojedi -

You said, 'Ultimately, with every choice we make, there is the right/good one and the wrong/evil one.'

It would be interesting to discuss the great ethical questions of whether or not there are 'gray areas'.

[Rey Reynoso]

Let me see if I follow what some are saying:

Premise 1: The heart and mind is the source of all action
Premise 2: Everyone's minds and desires are desperately wicked.
Premise 3: God abhors evil since it is antithetical to who He is: a rebellion against Him.
Therefore: Everyone's minds and desires are in constant rebellion against God.
Therefore: Everyone's actions (which are generated from thoughts and desires) are wicked and in constant rebellion against God.

Does that sum it up?

[ScottL]

Yep, good summary for those pre-Christ.

Though it is not for this discussion, I am still interested in people's thoughts on still referring to those in Christ as 'wicked' and 'totally depraved'. Is it helpful and fully correct?

Rey Reynoso said:

Let me see if I follow what some are saying:

Premise 1: The heart and mind is the source of all action
Premise 2: Everyone's minds and desires are desperately wicked.
Premise 3: God abhors evil since it is antithetical to who He is: a rebellion against Him.
Therefore: Everyone's minds and desires are in constant rebellion against God.
Therefore: Everyone's actions (which are generated from thoughts and desires) are wicked and in constant rebellion against God.

Does that sum it up?

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

ScottL said:

It would be interesting to discuss the great ethical questions of whether or not there are 'gray areas'.

You are right. I don't see shades of gray though. While I think some acts are better than others or worse than others, they are all either the right choice or the wrong one. D.

[Rey Reynoso]

So follow up therefore:

Cornelius' thoughts and heart were in a state of constant rebellion and thus his actions abhorrent to God.

[ScottL]

Maybe there are shades of gray. Paul said -

'One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.' (Rom 14:2)

'One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.' (Rom 14:5)

'I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.' (Rom 14:14)

Of course we don't deal with food and days so much anymore, but the principle becomes important with practices cross-culturally, movies, music, art, etc. Right?

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

ScottL said:

It would be interesting to discuss the great ethical questions of whether or not there are 'gray areas'.

You are right. I don't see shades of gray though. While I think some acts are better than others or worse than others, they are all either the right choice or the wrong one. D.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

ScottL said:

Maybe there are shades of gray. Paul said -
'One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.' (Rom 14:2)
'One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.' (Rom 14:5)
'I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.' (Rom 14:14)

I think it would be real easy to take verses like this and make a case for moral relativisim. I don't think that the point though is that some things are right for me and wrong for someone else. I think the point he was making is that those that felt some things were wrong were "weaker brothers" and we should not try to force our smaller list of prohibitions on them. I believe the reason for this to be that there is nothing wrong with someone deciding not to go to movies, for example, even though that may not be a sin. It is best to err on the side of being *too* careful. But if someone that is too liberal in what they allow influences the more conservative brother, you end up with a lot of the positions that are politically correct today but which may not be "correct" at all. D.

[Chen Yew Lin]

So how did Enoch walk with God? How did God find Noah righteous in his generation? How could God said in Job 1:8 that Job was an unright and blameless man who turns away from evil? How did God find a friend in Abraham? No none is without sin but many are surely not totally depraved.

[Rey Reynoso]

Aaron, unfortunately I think what you stated sums up a lot of the normal responses I hear to this question and really doesn't do justice to a large swath of Scripture. I mean, what do you do with Cornelius' prayers and good works? Some guys say he was regenerated long before hearing Peter and that just strikes me as reading one's theology back into the text. And what does someone do with the fact that the spiritual dead are very much active in their rebellion? I mean, what kind of corpse is that?

I think that the metaphors of Scripture have been misappropriated to prove the wrong things. Folk argue that wickedness means no one seeks God, cite Paul but no one ever says "our mouths are literally open graves."