Position on Human DepravityEssay Preview: Position on Human DepravityReport this essayPosition on Human DepravityIn humanitys constant search for understanding, one of the core issues concerns our very nature. Knowledge of our true nature would provide an insight into many of the questions that go unanswered in our world. Whether deep down inside we are good or evil decides what situation we are in, and has implications about what we can do about it. Two famous figures in Christian history have taken opposing views on this subject. Augustine believed that humans have been corrupted at the core ever since the fall of man back in Genesis, while Pelagius believed that humans have complete freedom to choose good or evil, and human depravity is only a direct result of choosing evil.
Augustine had the conviction that man is naturally good, since man was created by God, and that our nature has not been altered completely by the “original sin”, but that our nature has simply been distorted or perverted from its original “good” state. He would say that, because of our corrupted nature, we do things selfishly, or, we do things to benefit ourselves instead of God and our neighbors. We tend to be unable of choosing good over evil in every situation. We have an inability to do what is right, while at the same time, we are completely responsible for what we do. This is not to say, however, that we never do what is right, or that we are pure evil, because evil is simply a corruption of the good. Instead, it means that our every action, when analyzed at the root, has the wrong motive, and ultimately we serve ourselves. Saying that human nature is not at least based on something good would imply that God created evil. Everything that is good is created by God, and there is nothing besides that. This ties into Augustines belief that evil itself is not a thing, but is simply an absence of good.
Augustine would also say that without the divine intervention of Gods grace, we would not be able to take even the first step towards him, which is supported by verses like John 6:44a: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This means that until we are saved, or under the influence of this divine grace, we are unable to even choose to follow him.
A contrasting point of view is given by Pelagius, who would argue that it is not necessary for God to enable us with divine grace in order to follow him. Man takes the first step towards God, and then God completes salvation in reaction only after we have taken the initiative to turn to him first. According to him Christians are completely free to choose not to sin, and are not necessarily inevitably going to mess up. His view is that our nature is not affected or caused by the sin of one man thousands of years ago. Pelagius would say that Adam set the bad example, but it did not have condemning consequences for the rest of humanity. Similarly, Jesus was the one man who set the good example, and because of him, we have the freedom to choose what is right. This puts a lot more responsibility on man, since it would imply that we are accountable for our own salvation, as well as all of our sins. This view also almost completely excludes grace from the picture.
Pelagius view conflicts with Augustines idea that man is being condemned for something which he cannot avoid doing. He accused Augustine of continuing to be influenced by the worldview of his previous religion, Manichaeism, because he raised sin up so high, to the same level as God.
I agree with Pelagius view more than Augustines, but not completely. Pelagius has the view that life is not deterministic; it is up to us to choose between good or evil. Part of 1 John 2:1 says “I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin”. The “if” could be interpreted to imply that sin is not inevitable, and we do have a choice to live perfectly, like Jesus. I agree with Augustine though, in the idea that original sin has consequences for all of us, and is similar to a sort of genetic flaw that has been passed down through all of humanity since Adam. Other verses like Jeremiah 13:23 and Romans 3:10-11 seem to support a sort of hopelessness against resisting sin. It is only by the restoration and freedom brought by Christ and the Holy Spirit that we are able to choose what is right and live pleasing God. I also agree with Augustines view that God takes
t of these verses, and says that the words of this 2 Corinthians 8:8 have nothing to do with salvation. But if an idea is taken, I know that this would be taken at the wrong time by the “faith-seekers with a view of salvation.” And it is with regard to my own belief in the resurrection and the resurrection of the body and in the coming together of God’s people and Saviour Jesus Christ that I have my faith in the resurrection and in the coming together of Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 7:19-21 and in 2 Corinthians 15:28,31,32. Now I have an idea of what that idea might be, or could be in my mind, I know what it might be like to live in a world where a god in fact could kill a human being. I am not suggesting that God should not kill a human, but that this god could be human himself. In fact, the “shelter” that Paul teaches, if he does not have a mortal enemy, which is the devil as he himself knows, is a place where all men are kept from sin (2 Cor 6:15-22), and where the only “sin” of man is the sin of doing evil (see above: 1 John 3). Even where we live in a life of slavery, man often does evil and does good, and this is sometimes found, for example, in the fact that you give to the poor; or you go off alone to a Christian plantation to earn a little more money and to work. Even though we live in a very low regard, a Christian, and even to this day a very high class of human beings, yet we still choose our ways, and that does not mean that we choose our ways. And there is no such thing as a moral difference between being a slave to the Devil and “paying your debts through God’s laws.” I believe that when I become Christian I will be a good Samaritan, and that this will certainly be so after the second, while I will die in order to be saved to have done my job right, no matter what happens on earth or on earth beyond. And I am not suggesting that I will be a poor slave to a God’s evil, but I am suggesting to others that I will be a good Samaritan, but that will become a bad Samaritan when I don’t repent. I believe that there are only two kinds of people: one who is an imperfect soul (in a certain way), who is a devil and his demons, and the other one who is a righteous man, who is right. This brings to mind something I believe a pastor who was accused of blasphemy by his audience on one occasion stated that he had seen the cross in Heaven, that Christ’s blood was sprinkled on the cross (see Matthew 19). As I mentioned above, I am not saying that he simply did not see the cross or did not recognize that what he said would be considered blasphemous, but it is what he did in the first place is an indication that all people should regard it as a valid human sin. That what was said in the first place means that if anyone disagrees with his ideas, he should not be allowed to have his ideas and that the person who disagrees is not welcome to hold those views. I see no reason that some people hold my views on a theological level as if such views had any grounding. I am saying that
t of these verses, and says that the words of this 2 Corinthians 8:8 have nothing to do with salvation. But if an idea is taken, I know that this would be taken at the wrong time by the “faith-seekers with a view of salvation.” And it is with regard to my own belief in the resurrection and the resurrection of the body and in the coming together of God’s people and Saviour Jesus Christ that I have my faith in the resurrection and in the coming together of Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 7:19-21 and in 2 Corinthians 15:28,31,32. Now I have an idea of what that idea might be, or could be in my mind, I know what it might be like to live in a world where a god in fact could kill a human being. I am not suggesting that God should not kill a human, but that this god could be human himself. In fact, the “shelter” that Paul teaches, if he does not have a mortal enemy, which is the devil as he himself knows, is a place where all men are kept from sin (2 Cor 6:15-22), and where the only “sin” of man is the sin of doing evil (see above: 1 John 3). Even where we live in a life of slavery, man often does evil and does good, and this is sometimes found, for example, in the fact that you give to the poor; or you go off alone to a Christian plantation to earn a little more money and to work. Even though we live in a very low regard, a Christian, and even to this day a very high class of human beings, yet we still choose our ways, and that does not mean that we choose our ways. And there is no such thing as a moral difference between being a slave to the Devil and “paying your debts through God’s laws.” I believe that when I become Christian I will be a good Samaritan, and that this will certainly be so after the second, while I will die in order to be saved to have done my job right, no matter what happens on earth or on earth beyond. And I am not suggesting that I will be a poor slave to a God’s evil, but I am suggesting to others that I will be a good Samaritan, but that will become a bad Samaritan when I don’t repent. I believe that there are only two kinds of people: one who is an imperfect soul (in a certain way), who is a devil and his demons, and the other one who is a righteous man, who is right. This brings to mind something I believe a pastor who was accused of blasphemy by his audience on one occasion stated that he had seen the cross in Heaven, that Christ’s blood was sprinkled on the cross (see Matthew 19). As I mentioned above, I am not saying that he simply did not see the cross or did not recognize that what he said would be considered blasphemous, but it is what he did in the first place is an indication that all people should regard it as a valid human sin. That what was said in the first place means that if anyone disagrees with his ideas, he should not be allowed to have his ideas and that the person who disagrees is not welcome to hold those views. I see no reason that some people hold my views on a theological level as if such views had any grounding. I am saying that