How Messed Up Are People?

[Halbhh]

Be sure to keep all that in context with mindfulness of the specific point Jesus was making in that context.

That children are initially already in the right place, so that if a child dies at 6 days or 6 years, even not knowing anything of the gospel, they will be in eternal life. Next, that we adults must change and become like them, humble and willing to listen and trust in God.

 

[Kenny'sID]

By God's grace I do.

By that, do you mean God forces you not to sin?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

A lot of the debate about salvation, justification, faith, and good works comes back to this question. Everyone knows that people have a sin problem, but how far down does it go? How badly has sin affected the human race? The traditional responses have been...

1. Totally Messed Up - This was the view of Augustine contra Pelagius. Pelagius taught that sin was not an inherited condition of mankind, but a personal choice. Everyone was born neutral with the freedom to choose either good or evil. Everyone had the natural, God-given ability to be good. Therefore, salvation came as a result of our own efforts to be good. Contrary to this, Augustine taught that sin has totally messed people up and apart from God's grace there is no hope for salvation. Calvin followed Augustine and taught that God must regenerate a person in order for them to respond to him.
   
   
2. Partly Messed Up - The Old Catholic church initially adopted Augustine's view but later drifted into a form of semi-Pelagianism. The Roman Catholic church's position today is that sin has sort of messed up people, but not completely. All people have the ability to respond to God and so salvation is a result of God's grace, but also man's spontaneous response. God and man work together for a person to be saved. This also has become the Arminian view.
   
   
3. Not Messed Up - This is the view of Pelagius (as described above) and many liberal Christians today. There is no original sin and sin is not an inherited condition. It's perfectly normal for humans to be imperfect and God does not expect perfection from us (liberal Christianity). OR God does demand that we be good and we do have this power within us. Therefore we are saved through tapping into our own inner goodness and being the people we know we can be (Pelagius and also some liberals).

What do you say?

Partly: I believe there is something good about us after all, we ARE God's creation and that in itself is worth saying "it is good".
Genesis
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.

 

[bling]

How can you know this if people are not born with a sinful condition?

Adam and Eve were made by God "very good", which I assume by God's standard the would be as good as they could be made.
Adam and Eve were parented (raised to adulthood) by the very best parent (programming them) to communicate, walk, eat, tend the garden and so on.

They had only one way to sin , but later would learn through the tree of knowledge tons of ways to sin.
As our very best all human representatives they sinner, so how could any of us down the road not sin?

The nonbeliever need to sin to help them in accepting God's charity in the form of forgiveness and thus obtain the gift of Godly type love (..he that is forgiven much Loves much...).

I don't know where you got these strange ideas from. The Bible teaches that all in Adam will die and that all were made sinners in Adam. Only those who are in Christ will be made alive and live because of him. All of this is in Romans 5.

No it is not. "because all have sinned" and did not say "because Adam sinned".

 

[ItIsFinished!]

I am not talking about material world as such (sun, moon, trees, mountains...), but specifically about our animal bodies.

Our body fights against spirit.

Humans are not animals.
Whatsoever.

 

[Vicomte13]

I don't think Tokien's words are inconsistent with the first option. One can be totally messed up and yet not as messed up as possible.

Well, then its possible to reconcile the first position and the Catholic one. Which is good. For my part, I’ve never understood the intensity of the historical debate on this issue. To me, it’s a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but I know that for some this is a foundational matter. It takes all kinds to make a world, I suppose.

 

[gideon123]

My vote ... pretty messed up.
I dont need to check a Bible verse to get to that conclusion. Just looking at the evening news helps me to decide.

Take a look at 2 Timothy, Chapter 3.
Is anybody else seeing this ... ??

Blessings!

 

[RDKirk]

That children are initially already in the right place, so that if a child dies at 6 days or 6 years, even not knowing anything of the gospel, they will be in eternal life. Next, that we adults must change and become like them, humble and willing to listen and trust in God.

You've actually stated two separate things, unless you're agreeing with what I said earlier.

I said that children are under the grace God grants to ignorance, not that children are inherently excused of the sin generated by Adam and Eve. As they grow older, that ignorance fades and becomes less excusable, until at some point they've seen enough God in creation that they no longer have the excuse of ignorance (Romans 1).

But that is a difference issue from the other characteristic of young children, which is to trust their parents and to follow their parents without intellectual consent to the direction and destination. That is the point Jesus was illustrating with His discussion of children, which has nothing to do with an assertion of innocence from Adam's sin.

There are adults with that characteristic, too--those who have adapted to the military way of life described by the centurion whose servant Jesus healed.

 

[Tree of Life]

By that, do you mean God forces you not to sin?

No. I mean that God has liberated me from sin so that I no longer have to obey it. If I sin, it's because I choose to degrade myself. I don't have to sin anymore.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, then its possible to renconcile the first position and the Catholic one.

I agree. The Old Catholic view (Augustine's view) used to dominate in the Catholic church. It wasn't until the Medieval era that Rome departed from this view.

 

[Vicomte13]

I agree. The Old Catholic view (Augustine's view) used to dominate in the Catholic church. It wasn't until the Medieval era that Rome departed from this view.

I’m not a fan of Augustine. He treated children in his care quite harshly, and his asinine “error has no rights” argument was part of the logic that led to the first executions of “heretics” by the Church in the late 300s. Any Christian who has worked his logic to the point where he believes he has the Mandate of Heaven to kill people has left the Reservation of my friends, and I dismiss him from the range of thinkers I’m willing to allow to speak in my court. When Christians behave like Muslims, I vote them off the island.

 

[Halbhh]

You've actually stated two separate things, unless you're agreeing with what I said earlier.

I said that children are under the grace God grants to ignorance, not that children are inherently excused of the sin generated by Adam and Eve. As they grow older, that ignorance fades and becomes less excusable, until at some point they've seen enough God in creation that they no longer have the excuse of ignorance (Romans 1).

But that is a difference issue from the other characteristic of young children, which is to trust their parents and to follow their parents without intellectual consent to the direction and destination. That is the point Jesus was illustrating with His discussion of children, which has nothing to do with an assertion of innocence from Adam's sin.

There are adults with that characteristic, too--those who have adapted to the military way of life described by the centurion whose servant Jesus healed.

The 2 passages, thus the 2 points. (The more legal stuff about children being innocent one could suss out from Paul though if one wanted, in Romans 2, 4, 5. But now a days I think of it more in terms of God will show consideration/mercy to children also, in view of such decisive things (to me) as from Malachi (via Luke 1) for instance, and even Deuteronomy) Sounds like we pretty much agree, though we use somewhat different ways of talking.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

None of the three are applicable to me.
Saved by the blood of the Crucified One.
⚘
Glory I'm saved...

 

[Faith Unites]

I agree! Does this suggest that we are in need of Christ to give us a new heart before we are able to respond to him?

No, I think we get the new heart post Christ. I think prior to a relationship with Christ the Holy Spirit acts exactly how it does in the OT. It can rest on someone to draw them in but it can’t fully enter. We are totally messed up. Totally totally. We want to be God so bad it’s insane. In our sin nature that is. In Christ we know that we must be last and must lose ourselves. Only then can we be first, but the goal is not to be first. The goal is Christ

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. I mean that God has liberated me from sin so that I no longer have to obey it. If I sin, it's because I choose to degrade myself. I don't have to sin anymore.

Then you just agreed, you do have a choice and you choose to sin sometimes but much less...that's my whole point. Also, I don't believe we ever "had" to sin, it's just that we never had a reason not to, then God offered us such a good deal, we chose to take it. He gave us reason not to sin...eternal life, and then some.

There is no mystical power there that stops us from sinning, it's just God doing so much for us, all so we will understand we need to stop sinning so he can let us in the pearly Gates. He offers us so much for a future as well that we choose to give him full respect, so we choose not to sin as a rule, and are not nearly like what we were, but still aren't perfect. He only asks that we sincerely try.

In short, he won us over so we now try to please him, and it was/is all our choice to stick with him and hopefully never let go.

 

[trophy33]

Humans are not animals.
Whatsoever.

Our body does not differ from animal bodies in its materia, only in shapes and functiones.

Why do you think that our cosmetics or medical treatments are tested on pigs or rats? Because our bodies are of the same substance.

 

[HatGuy]

I’m of the opinion that semi pelagianism and Arminianism stem from pelagianism

Semi pelagianiasm and Arminianism are not synonymous.

At least Arminianism in the classic sense.

Total depravity is affirmed under classical Arminian teaching (I'm talking Arminius himself here, and Wesley) while limited atonement and unconditional election is not.
Election is conditioned on saving faith, but such faith is given by the Spirit, it's not something human beings have.

I know it's common and popular for many Reformed / Calvinists to want to lump everything else under some form of Pelagianism, but it's in actual fact not true. It's true in certain circumstances (I'll admit a lot of Arminians are semi Pelagian) but it is not theologically true when you actually look at the details.

There are really four degrees of choice:
A. Augustinian (Calvinist essentially)
B. Semi Augustinian (Arminianism)
C. Semi Pelagianism (Eastern Orthodox)
D. Pelagianism (liberal thought, Finney, etc. mostly)

I've no idea where the Catholics truly sit, but I'd venture to say it's probably a little complicated.

 

[trophy33]

The 2 passages, thus the 2 points. (The more legal stuff about children being innocent one could suss out from Paul though if one wanted, in Romans 2, 4, 5. But now a days I think of it more in terms of God will show consideration/mercy to children also, in view of such decisive things (to me) as from Malachi (via Luke 1) for instance, and even Deuteronomy) Sounds like we pretty much agree, though we use somewhat different ways of talking.

"But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
Mk 10:14

 

[HatGuy]

In terms of the OP, I agree with Luther than human beings are capable of some form of civil righteousness, which God ensures through the use of Law. But human beings are not capable for God's righteousness, which is only given by God's grace in Christ, which we access only by faith in His name.

This is what the teaching of Total Depravity actually has always stated. It has never stated that human beings are not capable of any good, only that none of our "good" can justify us before God, and all of our "good" s tainted by a degree of sin and self righteousness, and our civil righteousness has to be governed by law and fear.

 

[trophy33]

But human beings are not capable for God's righteousness, which is only given by God's grace in Christ, which we access only by faith in His name.

No creation is capable of God's righteousness, not even angels or any other possibly existing beings. But our limitation is not our guilt.

A guilt must include our choice to do something unrighteous. A cat is not guilty that it cannot drive a car. Guilt is related to knowledge and capability.