Why jrj1701 is a bad person?

The doctrine of total depravity states that men in their nature are entirely and completely ruined. Every faculty. They cannot even desire good. This is firmly inconsistent with classical Christian views on original sin. St. Augustine, in his opening in The Confessions writes that “man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that You resist the proud, — yet man, this part of Your creation, desires to praise You” (Bk. 1, Ch. 1).

The doctrine of total depravity as layed out by Calvin and John Wesley states the following:

“every man a “carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to” his “law;” and which so infects the whole soul, that “there dwelleth in” him, “in his flesh,” in his natural state, “no good thing;” but “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil,” only evil, and that “continually.”” (John Wesley, Sermon 44 on Original Sin)

“Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin5 (Gal. 5:19); while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings,” (Calvin, Institutes, Bk. 2, Ch. 1)

But these views are not accurate for it would imply man is unable to naturally desire God. The Thomistic view states the following:

The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (I-II:60:1; I-II:63:1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (I-II:50:1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue. (St. Thomas, Summa, First Part of Second Part, Q. 85, A. 1)

So is jrj1701 a good person or a bad person? Well clearly the properties of his moral virtues are diminished and so his reasoning is diminished. It may be that some of his virtues are more diminished than others as well. But he’s not entirely bad. He is a very but not entirely bad person.

Advertisements

About newenglandsun

A student. Male. Passionate. Easily offended. Child-like wonderer. Growing in faith, messing up daily.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s