“So, without quoting the Bible, what do you think? Are human beings predisposed to good or evil?”
Isn’t that kind of unfair? After all, my views have been shaped by the Bible.
I think the answer is no. Besides the “there is no one who does good, not a one” line in Scripture, I look at people and see that everyone has a tremendous capacity to do evil. No one has to teach a child how to lie or to mouth off or to steal someone else’s toy. The institution of government exists because humans can’t handle anarchy. Character can be developed apart from God, but with no accountability to a higher authority or belief, character can be misguided and can be ditched at a moment’s notice.
Sure, people do good all the time. I get uncomfortable when a non-Christian shows more generosity or charity than I do! But the motive for his or her good is ultimately misguided in the eyes of God, because it isn’t for God’s glory. So, while it may seem good to us, I don’t think it seems good to God.

I’m not sure that this an “either-or” type of question. I think its more of a “both-and”. Humans have the capacity for both tremendous good and tremendous evil. We bear the Imago Dei, but are also deeply corrupted. We belong to a race that can claims as members both Mother Teresa and Idi Amin. I’m not sure that you can reduce human nature to being mere dispositions, whether toward good or evil. If forced to say, I think I would say we are predisposed toward good, but in the end often end up doing evil, usually motivated out of our own fear. We are all embodiments of Romans 7 (sorry, Tony), desiring to do good but actually doing evil.

Without a biblical framework it seems like we are neutral…and the choices we make determine the ontology of good and evil in our lives. One could even argue that we cannot possibly be evil or good and only the consequences of our choices are such.

“My answer was always the same: human beings are inherently bad, from birth. This answer was based on my notion of Original Sin, taught, as I described in my last post”
But Original Sin doesn’t teach that human beings are comprehensively evil, or any such thing. The doctrine only says that Adam’s sin deprived human faculty of perfect holiness and impaired us with regard to sinful inclinations, so that we, in God’s perspective, require a remedy through an infusion of divine grace.
The Calvinist view of total (comprehensive) depravity of mankind was never a Catholic doctrine and is *not* what Original Sin teaches.
Having said all that, you asked about intuition over the issue. Humans contain both the capacity for moral good and moral evil, and they invariably express both throughout their lives. (There is not one human that fails to express moral evil in his or her life.)
But Christ did not come to save men from the moral good they do; He came to save men from the moral evil they do. For moral evil is not accepted with God or compatible with man’s divine duty towards others.

Actually, you do have to teach a child to lie or steal or mouth off. Children tell the truth until they realize that sometimes the truth gets them into trouble. They don’t steal in the sense of knowingly taking what doesn’t belong to them–they think everything belongs to them. And they don’t mouth off until they are taught that it’s the only way to get a reaction or a response.
I believe we are born with the capacity to love and be loved. I also believe human beings are inherently self-focused and that this is more a matter of survival than sin. Babies have a built-in drive to stay alive, toddlers have a built-in drive to discover and learn, preschoolers have a built-in drive to differentiate from their parents. These are all self-motivated, but none of them are sinful in and of themselves. Can a 3-year-old be intentionally nasty and mean? Yes indeed. But was she born that way? I don’t think so.

“So without quoting the Bible…”? Are you kidding us? Human wisdom trumps the Bible! How great “I” art!
You, Tony, know that what you are advocating is Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism at best. Pelagius was denounced by the church (you know this…I don’t have to tell you), and by your denial of the inherent sinfulness of humans, you are saying that several biblical texts are wrong, or that in our own “human wisdom” we have missed out on the correct interpretation for some 1600 years.
It is a humble arrogance that says “it’s a good thing that we’ve figured this out when those who came before us couldn’t”. If the logic is carried out that Pelagius was right and the overwhelming majority of the church was right, then every philosophical argument that contains faulty reasoning derived from selective Scriptural passages, yet is rejected by the majority, should be seriously considered or adopted.

I think human beings have the same kind of original sin that everything else does. There’s not one living organism that doesn’t kill or damage others while competing for resources. Those which compete most effectively leave the most offspring, and there is neither pity nor mercy shown to the failed competitors as this process goes on, filling the gene pool with traits that help the survivors kill and damage their fellows.
It would take divine intervention to make any creature ‘good,’ in such a system, would it not?
Saying people are ‘good’ because they’re nice in my experience is sort of like my saying my cat is ‘good’ because she’s nice to me. The mice would disagree.

I do find it a little interesting to begin without reference to Scripture–I mean, I think I get the idea that we too often reflexively quote a belief system, based on certain understandings of certain texts, that substitutes deeper personal reflection. On the other hand, your approach does reflect quite a bit about an underlying worldview, and the relative importance of experience and Scripture (as you talked about before with reference to SSM). I’m not saying it’s bad, just saying that it implicitly raises a lot of important questions.
But anyway. After too many caveats, I’ll bite. I actually do believe that we are inherently sinful, in the way that I understand what that means. Like Larry, I don’t see it as an ‘either/or’. I believe we have strong propensities to be generous and good, and that is part of our good creation. However, I do see inherent selfishness and self-centerdness as woven very deeply into our being (that’s not exactly the same thing as “inherent”, so maybe this is a little different than the classic definition of original sin). I very instinctively serve myself or my own comfort, often to the expense of doing what is more healing, more radical, more loving for other people. And I think that we were created to live in complete love of other people, with complete dependence on God to do that, and anything shy of that counts as ‘sin’.
And, contrary to the Richard Beck post, I do think that our selfishness constitutes sin, because at root it betrays a lack of trust in God–at deepest root, it is a fear that we cannot fully trust God to care for our most basic and deepest needs, that we are in some way ‘on our own’ and therefore must secure ourselves, often at the expense of others.
For me (and this reflects my political leanings), a good example is how I behaved in response to our invasion of Iraq. I didn’t support it, I told some people so, and I think I even placed one call to one of my State Senators. But I didn’t do anything more than that, even as hundreds and thousands of Iraqis began dying. And so, even though I can often be a nice guy, and desire the best for people, there are serious limits to which I am willing to make myself uncomfortable when people are suffering for the ‘security’ of my nation.
Now, many people did much more than I did in that situation. And I am fully aware that serious distress often ‘brings out the best’ in us–that people often make serious sacrifices for the sake of others. But I also really believe that anything short of living fully, lovingly, in complete trust, as God created us to live–anything short of that is sin (this is influenced by my understanding of how the bible describes sin–so hope that’s not breaking the rules . And we all live with a certain amount of selfishness, a certain amount of depending on addictions, a certain amount of grasping for our own needs over those of others, even those we love the most.
I don’t think any of this diminishes the things that are beautiful and good about us. The imago dei is still there. This is the tension we live in. But, I continue to find that the idea that sin is woven deeply into our character just makes the most sense to me. It best describes myself, and our world. It best explains how nations full of ‘good, well-meaning’ people can allow and enable the huge catastrophic evil that humanity does to each other over and over again.

Left to my own devices I have to say that my character is usually bent towards my own ends. It’s only when I remember what Christ did for me that I feel empowered to really think of others (even my own wife and kids). I’m not a guilt ridden guy, quite the contrary, I just know on my own I’m kind of a jerk, but that is just me

If I am honest the entire concept of sin confounds me. I mean, what the heck is sin anyway? Is it just being bad, and if so then why do we only use the term in religious references. I mean when I get pulled over for speeding the cop never tells me I am sinning, and the ticket doesn’t mention sin on it anywhere.
So are we bad by default?
No, that’s a daft assumption and anyone who thinks that needs to get out more! I think we can all be bad, but equally we are all capable of being good. Ultimately we’re more often than not simply guided by what is good for us.

The question is impossible to answer, because you have failed to define what you mean by “good and “bad”. Without such a framework the question is useless.
However, we can (biblically) look at the question of what good and bad are. However, even then we are not left with a consistent definition (is “good” legal compliance? piety? holiness? conformity? obedience?)
If we’re using the terms “good” and “bad” to mean some sort of moral code then the code we use will determine how we see people measuring up. If our morals are pragmatic, and concerned primarily with survival then humans, as a whole, must be very moral and it is us who have thrived and now dominate our world.
Personally I lean towards moral subjectivism. I even think that this subjectivism can be applied to God, who surely does not conform to a ‘higher’ moral code than Himself(s). However the reason why God does not fall into the Euthyphro dilemma is because he is motivated by love. Love is the ultimate moral code. Love is the divine’s inherent state. So, divine action is borne out of this love, and not some adherence to a moral code, or piety. So, there is a sort of dilemma – who says that love is good? No-body can confirm that love is good, that’s the nature of subjective morality. All we can say is “taste and see if you think it’s good”. God is perfect love. Taste love.
Are humans inherently loving? Yes and No.
Are we perfectly loving? No, we are inconsistent.
This is our sin – that we do not love perfectly.

Tony,
Human experiences are not how we decide Christian doctrine.
You grew up in Suburban White America. If you had grown up in Darfur, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, 19th Century America in the south as an African American slave, in that barrio of Los Angeles as an illegal immigrant, or as the child of an abusive alcoholic father then your view the ‘goodness’ of humanity would be very very different.
Human experiences such as the ones you’ve described in this post exist on a spectrum and are not shared universally, they are live individually and are therefore incapable of providing us with universal truths that apply to all of us.
Furthermore, I am already suspicious of your definition of ‘Original Sin’. The Biblical doctrine of Original Sin does not teach that men are incapable of ‘civic good’ and kindness toward their neighbors. Instead the Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin teaches that from birth humans are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true faith in God.
Biblically speaking, the reason why all people sin is because they are sinners by nature. But that does not mean that we are not capable of good towards each other. (This is called Civic Righteousness and the motivations for Civic Righteousness run the spectrum from fear of punishment to selfishness to altruism). Instead, the real crux of the matter when it comes to Original Sin is that ALL humans by nature are incapable of possessing true fear, love and faith in the One True God. We human beings understand The Law but the saving message of the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins as our substitute, is a stumbling block and foolishness. Faith in Jesus Christ is something none of us can produce within ourselves.
Tony, if you’re going to deny the doctrine of Original Sin, please be sure to define it correctly so that you don’t end up defeating a straw man.

While the general consensus, and what the Church has considered correct doctrine, is that man is born inherently sinful, I am going to respectfully disagree. Yes, we are born with an inclination to sin, but that does not necessarily require us to. I maybe born with a genetic predisposition for developing cancer, but that does not necessarily seal my fate.
This fact was proven in Christ, who was both fully God and fully human. This is significant, most would argue that Christ was incapable of sin (due to His Divine parentage), but if that is true than his temptation and his death are meaningless. He had to be fully capable of every sin, and vice that we are without ever giving into His natural inclination. Christ showed what human kind was capable of, not because of His genetics but because of His complete reliance on Our Father.
More importantly, if we are born completely depraved then every child that dies around the world, should be sentenced to eternal damnation. However very few would be willing to make such an audacious claim, almost universally the Church agrees in an age of accountability. This idea alone requires a certain level of intent, behind the action of an individual; if that is the case a child who lies is not sinning until he realizes that his actions are wrong. Therefore we are not born with sin, but born into a world of sin. It is only after we are aware of the difference between right and wrong and consciously make the choice to choose wrong are we sinning.
Now the question as to whether or not we can choose good is an entirely different topic, I would agree that no we are incapable of choosing good. Not because of the Original Sin of Adam (and Eve) but because our own personal Original Sin. A child does not choose evil because they are forced too by the choices of men long forgotten, but rather because sin is so much easier than righteousness.

Tony,
You are a parent right? Where does my two year old learn to be selfish? Raw instinct based on the need for self-preservation? I never taught them to be selfish, they just do it naturally. Seems to be a pretty good argument to me for original sin. I have four kids. They all have shown self-destructive tendencies before they are ever taught a word from my wife and I as parent. Hence the need to instruct them as the Bible commends. Left to themselves without instruction, they would default into the kid that everyone stares at in the shopping mall that throw the huge tantrum.
Kids are the best examples of original sin that I can come up with.
z

You ask “Are human beings predisposed to good or evil?”
Yes. Both. However, that isn’t to say that we are born “neutral” or something silly like that. We are born with desires that seek fulfillment, yet we are inherently imperfect. Flawed people desire in flawed ways, and the result of that is sin. So, I would say that being born into “sin” or being born with a sinful nature is true. But that isn’t to say that we are evil. Evil is too ominous and totalizing of a word to use to describe our nature.
Evil, however, does result from human nature. When you get enough flawed people together, evil that is greater than the sum total of flawed humanity emerges. This can be understood sociologically or perhaps one could invoke the idea of the “powers” to get at this. So, while I cannot say that I was born entirely evil (or totally depraved), I cannot say that I was born good. Nevertheless human evil is a social reality and is the inevitable result of human frailty.

I think it creates a false dichotomy to say that we’re predisposed to one or the other. We’re good/bad people. We’re inherently valuable and creative and capable of amazing things. We’re also inherently broken and confused and capable of incredible evil. When I look at a child and see their imagination and smile while playing, I think that we’re good. When I look at a child who has a mischievous grin after punching his little sister in the mouth, I think we can’t be entirely good. We’re each a beautiful mess.

Chris Rosebrough is correct to suspect Tony’s idea of original sin. No one that affirms the doctrine has ever said that it makes people incapable of civic goods or unable to act kindly toward other human beings. The point of the doctrine is with reference to God. Nothing that we do is ultimately good in the sight of God if we do not know Christ for we are doing it for the wrong motive. Not having faith we do nothing from faith and everything done apart from faith is sin.
I am a self-conscious Calvinist and have to observe that once more somebody from the Emergent Church is criticizing a position that he does not seem to understand in the first place.
We must likewise beware of starting any argument, let alone a theological one, from our own intuition. Lots of crimes have been committed who by their intuition thought it was right to hate another people group. Obviously, Tony does not fall into that category, but the heart of everyone is desperately wicked and quite inclined to believe those things that are easy to affirm in this culture. If people are not born evil then there is no need of a Savior and if there is no need of a Savior, none of the apostles would have died for the truth they proclaimed. Their affirmation of original sin is implicit in their belief that all people apart from Christ are eternally lost.

I’m with Mark on this one, I think. I’d love to draw attention to Mike Clawson’s post at http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2008/12/relational-nature-of-sin.html. He looks at the relational nature of sin – making what I think is a good argument we become who we are by “a complex interplay of nature and nurture, and especially through the process of socialization.” It’s a bit long, but worthy.

Zach, I’m a parent of more kids than you ranging now from 12 to 27 and 1 granddaughter. I’ve heard your argument from more than one person. Personally, I think you are reading what you have been shaped to read into your children. I’ve never seen that at all and my kids are far from perfect. Kids don’t have to be taught as in some explicit classroom exercise or over intentional effort. They absorb it from the world around them. For instance, was there a time when you taught your kids not to be cannibals?
I think I agree with Carla. I would say there is no human more innocent or closer to God or more filled with the love of God than a human infant. And even though we’re not discussing scripture here, I do seem to remember Jesus saying something similar.

‘basically’ evil.
I think if your talking about that inner-most stuff that people are made out of when it really comes down to that moment of crisis decision or that 1st response to conflict, then we ,more often than not, fail to rise to the occasion.
I think in a law abiding society, a Christian heritage of government, accountability, law enforcement, we see people for the most part behaving well. Probably due to that fact that more people are followers rather than leaders. So, remove those things, remove law, remove Christian heritage, remove accountability, replace leadership with something more self-serving or sinister, and ask the question again.
My intuition…
As a child of a Friends Church pastor and ,for the most part, decently behaved, and though I don’t find myself out performing clear acts of evil, I do have this incredible ability within me to rationalize things away that I ‘ought’ to be doing. I know there are hurting people out there, fatherless, broken, widows, people without the mental faculties to maintain a base-wage job. Why do I not put every ounce of blood filled sweat and energy into them; caring for them, helping them, saving their lives!? Why do I instead bury myself in work and family, invest my money in Starbucks and my time watching American Idol..?! What the @#$%! is wrong with me!!?? I feel like that guy on the stairs in “Saving Private Ryan”. inept, paralyzed, and at the end of the day lives are lost because of my hesitation and cowardice. Pulling way back and looking at this behavior on a world-wide scale seems selfish and downright evil.
When I think this way, the idea of original sin seems to make some sense out of what i’m feeling.

I think my ‘intuition’ is tied in many ways to what I’ve seen in children. In many ways, as I stumbled into Christianity, I knew that this God made known to us in Jesus really was true God was because this picture of God matched the image I had seen in the face of infants. The reality and the reflection in the eikon matched.

I’m not sure why this is so hard. I too was brought up to believe that all of humanity was born depraved, but I honestly never felt comfortable with that. My intuition has always led me to believe that humans are born wholly good. We damage that goodness very quickly, but initially, we are good not evil.

Sorry for my ignorance…does the belief in original sin mean the belief that babies are dammed…? is that the classic view?

VJK, the idea presents that problem. It’s almost been universally rejected, though the various ways in which it has been rejected are somewhat legion and an interesting study in and of themselves. Almost nobody is willing to say that a baby is condemned by virtue of its birth alone.

We recently had a big discussion about this on our church’s online Unauthorized Theology Pub, and to be honest, I sort of came to the conclusion that the question kinda bores me. Possibly because I’ve never been an evangelical (though I do church among evangelicals these days) and definitely not a Calvinist, I’m like, “so what?”
The Bible says that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. My intuition and experience concur with this. However, it seems clear that every human being, from birth, has the capacity for evil. So in this debate, I end up looking at the “inherently good” camp and the “inherently evil” camp, and saying, What are you talking about? And who cares? It seems pretty obvious that the answer is “both”.
We’re complex critters, we talking monkeys, and our “nature” is just not that simple. We should treat each other as precious, beloved children of God – beloved children who are, nonetheless, not exactly to be trusted. I can see the pitfalls of being too committed to either side of this debate – and I can see places in theology and culture and history where we’ve clearly been too committed to either side – but c’mon…since when are we that dualistic, or that simple? “Inherently good”, “Inherently evil” – whateverz.
We’re both. We’re complex. Our oversimplifying theories/theologies aren’t helping us.

Mike, I don’t tend to think in terms of ‘inherently’ this or that. I was trying to adapt to the language others were using. I tend to think in terms of created good (and thus born good) into a damaged world with damaged people, infected by death, and with a tremendous capacity for both good and evil. I would also then say that it only in Jesus that we ultimately find the grace and power to live as true human beings.

I stand with Chesterton on this one – the concept of inherent sinfulness should almost go without question. Children are naturally selfish. Children are naturally violent. Children are naturally greedy. They have to be taught virtue. They don’t have to be taught how to be evil.
Being inherently sinful doesn’t mean we also aren’t inherently good as well. I think humans are born with two conflicting desires within the human nature – one to be evil and one to be good. We are born inherently to choose the evilness within us, but have to be taught to choose the good instead.

Scott, I was picking on the question, not any particular answers.

Mike, I agree for the most part. I don’t think the discussion is wholly useless though. I don’t care for the term ‘original sin’, ‘Cursed’ or ‘Diseased’ resonates with me much better. I’m sure there will be objection to the interpretation, but I especially see this quality when i look at the parables in the new testament about ‘what the Kingdom of Heaven’ will be like. Over and over again it’s pictures of mixtures of good and bad things; opposites. It’s like wheat & weeds, it’s like dough and leaven…etc, till that final day when good and evil are properly divided. This tells me that I’m an angel/devil a saintly/sinner, a blessed/curse, a diseased/doctor, a yen/yang. This seems like what the Bible is talking about. And in life, I see different proportions of each opposite. Never totally absolute in one direction or the other. Hitler may have been a generous tipper.
The event in the garden seems so pivotal to our human experience. The choice to choose between God’s judgment of good and evil or my own? This seems to impact every moment of my day. It’s clear to me that it’s not 2 equal forces pulling at me though. It’s more like standing in a moving river and moving upstream. The impulses that move me to evil/not-good behavior seem that ‘natural thing’ that I have to resist or react against. This shows me that the forces are lob sited, and it’s ‘with effort’ against my nature that I find a proper relationship with God.

I think I’m with Mark and Jonathan here in “Yes/both/and” camp. I just think that humans are much more complex beings than simply being completely predisposed either way. We are hardwired with deep, relational yearnings and desires — we all bear the Imago dei, we can’t help it. Things get mucked up when we misuse and abuse those yearnings. Now, I don’t think that necessarily means we’re wholly good or wholly bad. It just means that we not living into the right narrative, so to speak. And by doing so we’ve aligned those deep desires and yearnings in the wrong direction.

There are a lot of great things that have been said, so I’ll try not to rehash other poster’s (better/clearer) thoughts.
Someone can probably correct me on this, but don’t most Jews (Orthodox, Reformed, and Conservative) reject the notion of Original Sin? That is one of the arguments (of many) as to why they are (were) not looking for a spiritual savior. What’s there to be saved from if we are not born seperated from God? One’s walk with God can wax and wain depending on lots of stuff but one is always “with” God. Original Sin is not about living sinfully, but being in a sinful state, as others have stated above.
I think the question is, if you dissect it, are we born seperated from God or in a perfect state (relationship) of obedience with God? It’s not about being naturally naughty or nice. It’s what’s the state of my relationship with God? If you say that we are born in a state of complete and perfect obedience to God, then how/when/why do we lose it?
Original Sin shouldn’t be a dirty word. Fun to talk about, but not something that we should just pass over. (Forgive the theological (read: lame) pun).

I’m not sure how I’m supposed to respond to this w/o a biblical defense… after all (sorry, I have to) the Bible is for “teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”
But it would be very difficult to think we are born with a natural inclination towards “good,” though I guess it would mean we would have to define “good.”
Look at a baby. Babies cry. Why? They are hungry. They are thirsty. They just pooped. They want to be held. They want to be burped. They just pooped. Bottom line: babies are selfish.
Is selfishness a “good” quality?

“…no evil thing is evil insofar as it exists, but insofar as it is turned…” -Saint Gregory Palamás

Hello all!
Evidence outside the bible for the notion of original sin:
1. My heart
2. Children (Sorry Scott M, I am with Zach on this one; even though I don’t have to tell my kids not to be cannibals, I do have to instruct them to be grateful, to tell the truth even when it not in their self interest, to apologize, to share, etc.; this does not come naturally).
3. From what little I know of anthropology, every culture (it seems) has some notion of right and wrong (even if they define those things very differently); it seems that our moral nature presupposes an innate recognition that something is broken in us (and in the world) to begin with (thus shame, guilt, blame, etc., seem to be universal human emotions)…how else could we explain the universal presence of categories like bravery and cowardice, honor and shame, and damage and reparation?

Let’s try again, what is pious?

At Ethan:
I’m not so sure babies can be so easily characterized as selfish. That has indeed been the way they’ve been so easily characterized throughout Christian history, particularly by those who used it to (among other reasons) support the concept of infant baptism, but I’m not so sure that’s a correct way of interpreting the underlying character of a baby or infant when they cry or want to be held or need food.
To be selfish, in a sense, means one has to be conscious enough to make such a decision–to make a decision in favor of one’s own self as opposed to another. And that means one has to have a self that is developed enough, cognitively, to engage in that process of decision-making. Babies and infants, most cognitive psychologists will tell you, haven’t developed that ability to differentiate in such a way as to make that type of decision.
I think it’s clearly wrong to apply that kind of label to babies or infants so quickly, because it doesn’t take into account the findings of cognitive psychology, which clearly shows that categories like “right” and “wrong” (i.e., “sin,” if you want to call it that) aren’t even clearly identifiable categories in one’s consciousness until, at the earliest, the very latest stages of infancy and early stages of childhood.
But this is a mistake that the Christian church has made for thousands of years. And a mistake, I think, that it continues to be fine with making because of the perceived problems that come with having to then talk about the concept of sin without the ease of saying that it’s universally innate in every human being at birth. You’d have to start talking about when one becomes conscious of sin, instead, and thus when it’s alright for a child to make their own, conscious decision to be baptized (i.e., when is the time when they can appropriately understand the concept of sin, of the gospel, etc.).
And most churches don’t really want to get involved in that because it’s too tough. It requires more work, more attention to the spiritual growth of a person. It’s much easier just to sprinkle a five week old infant who is already depraved because of their “original sin” and claim them for the kingdom and move on, than it is to actually walk with them along their own process of discernment concerning whether they actually know what it means to “sin,” what the gospel is, and whether they ultimately want to be a part of a community that tries to live their lives by those kind of guideposts.

Actually as a biblical Christian this is really no surprise to my. It is rather a logical and theological consequence of the Emergent movement. Others are declaring war on the Bible as authoritative, denying homosexuality is a sin. So the next step to deny Original Sin seems consistent.
So the question remain then is this. Then why did Jesus die on the cross if it was not for a morally depraved and totally wicked human race that was lost in sin? We are not basically good and to claim we are is the height of arrogance and deception. God is holy and righteous, if we deny our sin we deny the truth of who God is.

I wonder if Jesus cried when he was a baby. And if He did, was it because He was selfish?

Todd, have you ever stopped to think about what it means to call a text “authoritative”? It makes no sense, a book cannot have a authority, only people, and the interpretation they give a text, have authority, when someone says the Bible is authoritative they are really saying that “my interpretation is authoritative”. It’s a pure power play, nothing more.
And nobody in the Emergent conversation is denying the atonement, at least that I’m aware of. Questioning Anselmian penal substitution is not the same thing as questioning the atonement. Just what did Christians believe before Anselm came along?

i for one did not have to teach my nephew to lie or use physical violence to get what he wants
where did he get that from?
could it be that he is predisposed to do such things?
scripture upon scripture upon scripture says that we, on our own, have no value, worth or capasity for good in us.
if we did and we were worth something does that not negate what Christ comes to save us from/to?
and your pre-supposition that you can defend your theory with anything but scripture is arrogant and prideful
sure this is the son of God’s hand chosen people to display his glory and knowledge through, but me, a 30 year old no one who has a brain and blog can give his thoughts with no scripture or another intelligent person who was ever prominent in the actual body of believers to back up my theory
the fact YOU have a problem with that the scriptures tell you about yourselves means that there is a problem with you, not the text who would force the issue on you

“scripture upon scripture upon scripture says that we, on our own, have no value, worth or capasity for good in us.”
Ben, the very son of the Creator died in order to prove the exact opposite. He did not die so that we would have worth; He died because we have worth.

I think Mike Croghan said it very well: this is a false choice, it’s both/and. We humans are capable of awe-inspiring good and reprehensible evil. And we demonstrate both regularly, sometimes even from one breath to the next. I’m not convinced this is a helpful discussion.
This will probably sound like snark, but I really want to know: why are some so bent out of shape by the idea of a discussion sans biblical references? I just don’t get it.
I also truly don’t understand the rush to prove how sinful we are through “my child is worse than your kid” stories. Do you really not like your children that much? Maybe if you “caught” your son/daughter doing something good instead of focusing so much on what s/he does wrong, they wouldn’t seem so depraved to you. (And, yes, I am a parent of two kids under 4.)
On another note…
Blue Collar Todd asks, “why did Jesus die on the cross if it was not for a morally depraved and totally wicked human race?” How about this: because he defied the power structure by presenting a deeper way to live. And by teaching through word and deed that all people – especially those deemed abominations by the religious powers – were worthy of God’s love and were not to be excluded. It’s pretty selfish if Jesus only died for my sins, isn’t it?

Paul Johnson tells an interesting story about how the North African Bishops dealt with pelagian and his followers in Rome. I am not an historian but it is a very interesting story.
Original sin, I can agree we are wounded, even from birth with mortality and a propensity to do the negative or wrong. I do struggle with the concept that we are utterly totally depraved and complete enemies with God from the very moment of conception. That because of original sin every single action, motive, move, breath is an utter affront go a Holy God worthy only of vengeance and eternal Wrath. Basically God loathes the vast majority of humanity.
I cant bring myself to see my fellow humans in that light. Because of the nature of my work I see folks whom struggle with disabilities, usually from birth and I see such courage and grace that I cant attribute it to some “unholy” motive. It seems God’s mercy and grace shines through adversity. Of course I may well be wrong but when I first became a “Christian” I could not even look at others with out feeling such a horrible despair knowing that most are totally lost, with no hope what so ever. I just cant seem to view God that way.

I don’t know how anyone could answer this without some sort of bias.
With that said…I’ll say, evil.

@ Rev Dave,
Jesus is the object of our faith. That includes the theological propositions that Jesus is the One and Only Lord and Savior of mankind. Jesus died for all of our sins and only through Him is their forgiveness. And as a result of true faith then we faithfully obey His teachings, thus showing our salvation. There is no way to God through Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or any other religion.
@Larry,
Yes there are some in the Emergent movement denying Jesus is the only way of salvation for mankind. And if the thinking here is any representation, it will follow very soon. Men are deciding what sin is now, not God.

Not to be a semantic nitpicker, but there’s a difference between Augustine’s doctrine of original sin — the idea that Adam and Eve’s original acts of disobedience led to a kind of viral infection of all humankind passed from generation to generation — and the idea of the total depravity of humankind — and the (I think) rather uncontroversial observation, living in this world as a human being and also having a fair to middlin’ knowledge of human history and of the witness of Scripture, that human beings have a propensity for selfishness, self-centeredness and self-importance that can lead to a dishonoring of God and disrespect for one’s neighbors. My Eastern Orthodox friends, whose theology wasn’t informed by Augustine, and who also tend to have a more optimistic opinion about human moral self-improvement than this relatively pessamistic Lutheran does, understand that.
One can affirm the goodness of the created world — the idea that God created us and everything else out of love, and declared it all a good thing — and still affirm that the world, and the people in it, are in many ways broken; that we don’t always love God with our whole hearts and don’t always love other people. Scripture also holds these two truths in tension.
As a previous poster noted, this innate tendency toward “inward-turnedness,” to borrow a phrase from Luther, has its roots in the self-absorption/solipsism of infancy, when self-centeredness is a handy survival skill for a helpless baby.

… is rather depressed at the low view so many seem to take of children. Different and crazy as my upbringing might have been, I’m glad I wasn’t raised in an environment or by parents who believed that.

Hey Tony. Well I think this is a tough question and I assume that my thoughts are more ideas than possible answers to that.
When I look at my newborn daughter (2 weeks horray) I can’t possibly think of her being evil from the moment of her birth (or before?). And I can’t think of any other baby being evil.
To me being evil has always to do with acting evil (can’t seperate that). So every human being is not evil oder good but is acting on a particular situation evil or good.
Just my 2 Cents.
Greetings (and thanks for your latest book, great stuff).

I haven’t read every comment, but I’m curious…
Does all of orthodox Christian tradition get thrown out the window here?
I mean isn’t this the same conversation the church had with Pelagius?
I was in class yesterday and heard this said (b/c we were discussing the image of God):
Two categories of imago dei: 1)Ontological: intellect, will, emotions, etc.. and 2)Moral/Ethical: everything we that do. Original sin affects the moral/ethical (and maybe a little of ontological…that’s what was said). So this holds that we are made in the image of God, but sin has marred the ethical part (hence children wacking each other with balls and bats when their 2…well, that’s what my daughter did to me).
Emergent has helped me rethink many things, but I’m getting concerned when I hear stuff like this. This conversation is not new in the Christian tradition, and it has already been spoken for. It doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it, but I have a hard time not appreciating tradition on this.
Does this make sense?

Mike, the issue with Pelagius (and Augustine’s response) was mostly about grace and freedom. I just read this post today with excerpts from Lossky on the way most Orthodox viewed both poles a bit askance.
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2009/01/grace-and-freedom-two-words-one-mystery.html
Anyway, a denial of the Western notion of original sin is not even particularly similar to Pelagius’ error. Different discussions altogether. All that God creates is, at the very least, good when God creates it, including still today his Eikons. Yes, creation may be marred and damaged by the effects of sin in such a way that we cannot escape it. We all repeat again Adam’s sin of self will. I would even say in that sense, we are all Adam.
But this evil, guilty, depraved, or however you want to put it — from birth — idea, is in many ways a denial of the God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth and of whom Holy Scripture and the Church testify.

If people are not predisposed to sin (inherently bad, prideful, etc) then it must follow that there remains the possibility that a normal human can be sinless by means of his own effort.
Reconciling this with Romans 3:23 then takes some fancy dancing – “for ALL have sinned…” The Scriptures appear to be greatly consistent on this fact – “there is none righteous, no not one”. If no one can be sinless, then where is there room for the existence of a person who is not born with an inherently sinful nature?
For the sake of argument, even born sinless, scripture guarantees that we all will sin, so what difference is there whether we are born with a sinful nature, or born perfect and guaranteed to sin. Sin and the fallen nature of humanity as a whole is a given.
I might have been more intrigued by this idea of original sin as unscriptural, until I had children. And while they seem so perfect and innocent in their completely dependent nature – the very minute they begin to express their own will, the existence of a sinful nature becomes quite evident. Don’t get me wrong, my children are great kids, but the truth of scripture is plainly evident as you would expect it to be when accepting the entirety of scripture as the Word of GOD, Holy and infallible.

Read Dawkins The Selfish Gene. Then decide if “selfishness” = “original sin.” Think of all the effects and behaviors related to and springing from this apparent selfishness of the gene. What are the ramifications for one’s understanding of “original sin” and human behavior?

Scott,
I don’t think you are understanding the Ontological/Ethical distinction.
Ontologically and ethically, we were made in the image of God. The fall has marred ethically our propensity to do good (hence the children example). Our image is not lost, but distorted (I haven’t read McKnight’s book on the Eikons, but I’m guessing that’s what people are referring to).
If no original sin exists, I am trying to reconcile the first Adam/last Adam notions in Scripture, and, agreeing with Western, why do we need Jesus in the first place? Isn’t that the conclusion we are coming to?
I would define sinful nature in the ethical category, not the ontological. So while the image is all human beings, ethically, we are marred by the fall.
I just understand why the cross is even needed if humans have the possibility of not sinning from birth.

What are your thoughts without the Bible!?
That is subtely insidious. How do you have a Christian theological conversation without the Word of God.
That leaves all to mans reason and there are a meriad of verses that warn against that.

All of the replies posted from the Scripture leave what he originally said a false doctrine.
I think that is why the last statement says “what do you think without using the Bible?”
Oh I don’t know, anything because without the Bible we can make up anything we want.

In response to the question about whether I know if man is good or evil without quoting the Bible, my answer is HOW WOULD I KNOW?????? Good would indicate that I am in alignment with God, and there is NOTHING in my heart that would TELL ME when I am not in alignment with God’s will because my heart deceives me!!! So to toss the bible aside in discussing good and evil is like throwing aside the instruction manual when fixing my car (or whatever you have no knowledge of). I CAN NOT DO THAT!!!!

@Citidel & Jack: Seriously, did you even read the subtitle or the first paragraph?!? Look again, subtitle (for lack of a better word) reads: Intro-Intuition-Definition-Genesis-Paul…I’m pretty sure it is a safe bet that this series will include discussion of scripture. Now reread Tony’s first paragraph: “…don’t read too much into this…I will answer your questions…take a deep breath and see where we go with all this…”
Nothing there suggests eliminating the bible from the conversation. In fact, just the opposite. Clearly, Tony’s intention is to include a biblical discussion. Please stop pretending otherwise; it is dishonest and extraordinarily grating. (Yes, I know, Tony doesn’t need me or anyone else to defend him, he’s perfectly capable of doing that on his own. But, seriously, that is annoying and unhelpful.)
But again I’ll ask: what is it exactly about starting the conversation outside of scripture that threatens you so? I’m not being snarky, I really want to understand this.

Rev Dave:
If you think that Citadel and Jack feel threatened by starting the conversation outside of scripture, then I honestly believe you are missing the point.
If someone believes the Bible is the Word of God and is authoritative, then starting the conversation anywhere else would defy the proper logical order of establishing the foundation for future discussion. What one’s personal intuition tells him or her, no matter how agreeable to the Word of God, is irrelevant in that context. The real questions are at least these two: how authoritative is the Bible, and how does one correctly interpret it? Someone who adopts the mental framework I stated does not and would not begin with the philosophical context initiated in this blog posting.

Evil.
No one has to teach a child to how to hit someone or tell a lie. They know all by themselves.
We are inherently evil. Which is not to say we are completely evil, just that everything we do is tainted with evil.
Even our righteousness is as filthy rags.
We are not pure evil (which probably doesn’t exist) but even our best actions are tainted. Only Jesus was capable of pure good (He was the platonic Form of the Good…)

OK, I admit that I did not read every comment, so if someone has already made this point, feel free to ignore me. I want to probe Tony’s description of original sin as “people are inherently bad, from birth.” I think that to start with the word “bad.” “Bad” is too vague, nondescript. It makes “depravity” seem, well…bad, and this step, too, is not very accurate or helpful.
I did scan enough comments to see some very helpful interpretations of Augustinian thought or Pelagianism, et. al. I won’t rehearse any of them. I think the key point in thinking about original sin is that it describes what appears to be a universal impulse that is fundamentally chaotic, i.e. it manifests the disorder of non-creation, in human ways, of course. So, original sin (or depravity) is not primarily about badness. It’s about the impulse to repudiate God as Creator and Lord, which leads to bad things. I do believe the doctrine of original sin, properly understood, provides an essential insight for Christian thought.

Rev Dave,
My point is this. How can you even start to understand good and evil enough to discuss without scripture? What morals would you base them on? Who is to say what is good or evil? For me it is like trying to describe the color red to someone who is blind. You can give some vague analogies and use heat to describe it by feelings, but in the end unless they see it they can not fully comprehend the color red. The same is true with good and evil. You can not understand it unless you can see it. The only way it can be truly be seen is through the eyes of scripture as interpreted by the Holy Spirit, not Tony Jones or my intuition because both are fallible. If I am wrong in this theory prove it. Show me how we can develop any firm set of standards without scripture. Also, explain how you can be in need of a Savior if there is no original sin as Tony Jones states. Without the doctrine of original sin, I do not know how one can see how wretched we are and how merciful God was in allowing His son to die on our behalf.

I’m not totally sure why the discussion starts with non-biblical thinking ( i think i can guess), it seems kinda like asking questions about person a, who is sitting next to you from the person b, whis sitting next to person a…. anyway, the arguments about lying babies don’t do much for me – neither do most apologetics in that vein, but what does seem sensible to me is start off asking what is “bad” as in “I really had nothing to base my “humans are bad” concept?” what is bad like, what would a “bad person” be like? finally, TJ said, “I generally felt that people are good, kind, and generous.” – does that statement really negate the idea that people can be “bad” no matter how much they try to conform socially? Can you only now say that living in this century, under this pres, in this country – could you say that if you lived in say (you pick a bad place during a bad time with bad people, i’ll agree that it was a good example).
Isn’t it bad people who need improvement, like everyone breathing, and not good people – i swear thats not a scriptural reference to when jesus said the sick need a physician?

Jack,
You’ve given a lot to respond to; I’ll do my best with at least some. I suspect our differences/disagreements will ultimately come down to us having very different understandings of the role and authority of scripture, but I guess we’ll see.
You say: “How can you even start to understand good and evil enough to discuss without scripture? What morals would you base them on?” Perhaps I misunderstand you, but this reads to me like you are saying it is impossible to know good and evil, and impossible to have morals, apart from scripture. This seems self-evidently false. I mean mores, laws, codes of conduct – in other words, expressions of good and evil, expressions of morals – existed in societies before there ever was a bible and exist today in people and communities that don’t appeal to the bible. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who are moral, who do good, who are generous and loving and compassionate and who also have basically no knowledge of scripture and don’t care to.
You say: “only way [good and evil] can truly be seen is through the eyes of scripture as interpreted by the Holy Spirit, not Tony Jones or my intuition because both are fallible.” This is the same argument we’ve had over and over on the SSM posts: there is no such thing as an unbiased, neutral, objective reading of scripture (or anything else for that matter.)
This post is way too long already so in response to your final questions about a Savior and God “allowing his son to die”, well I find that Jesus birth and life are just as, and often more important, for understanding and following Jesus than his death is.

Your first mistake was to rely on your “intuition” and not the Scriptures. Your belief is the same as Pelagius’, on the doctrine of original sin. The denial of the doctrine of original sin is heresy. You should repent.

It seems like many of the commenters decided to ignore the rules of engagement… the question is what is your basic intuition on the concept that we are born completely without the ability to do any good. I’ll answer that my intuition and basic observation of human beings says absolutely. I won’t scripture dump because I was requested not to.
It’s rude to completely ignore the wishes of the poster and simply engage in the manner requested. Try being honest and answer the question AS PRESENTED… it’s not difficult.

Umm…what’s the point of our just putting in our opinions without referencing the Bible? Isn’t the Bible supposed to be lay the ground rules for what we believe? If you or I believe man isn’t sinful from birth, what does it matter unless what we believe is the same as what the Bible teaches?
Weak, buddy.

Well, this is a challenge, eh? I mean, I don’t know exactly how to separate the messages that originate in my intuition from the ideas that originate elsewhere (mind/reason? heart/emotion? conscience? big toe?). Also, I guess I need a more clear definition of “good” and “evil.” So, with the acknowledgment that the parameters of this post invoke a hopeless handicap:
My “intuition” says that people are born to pursue pleasure and self-preservation. My observation (which feeds my intuition) shows that, while most humans are capable of “selfless” acts, the general bent of humanity is towards destructiveness: we progressively destroy the environment, our relationships, and our own selves.
I hope this can be an acceptable response.

Oops. Didn’t finish. So, my intuition tells me that destruction is evil. So I think/feel/sense/detect humans are born with a natural bent towards evil.

Thing is any “good” that people do without believing that Jesus Christ has died and rose from the dead is for selfish purposes.
Even though mother theresa did wonderful things… if she did not do them and believe Jesus Christ is the end all say all…. she did them with a delusion that doing good for HUMANITY made “her” a better person. If we are to live by the grace that jesus christ has for us we have to know that it is by HIS POWER, love, and sacrifice that we are made holy and acceptable…. anything else is actually some form of pride hidden from ourselves by ourselves (or outside influences) in order that we fall. WE cannot be humble unless or until we admit that WE DO NEED a savior. EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW
Then she did them out of “humanitarianism”; She believes humans can be holy and good apart from “PERFECT REDEMPTIVE SACRIFICE for SIN”
WHICH, case in point, would be sin in and of itself. It is Pride. It is being unable to be meek and humble and admit that you even have any pride to begin with.