Good, Bad or Neutral?

July 8, 2005 by BA
Filed under: Doctrine 

Do you think man is inherently evil (bad), inherently good, or neutral (or a combination thereof)? I think this is an extremely important question and your answer has a major impact on your whole thought process (including your theology).

To be more specific, the question should be divided into three parts:

Do you think a saved person is inherently good, bad, or neutral?
Do you think a lost person is inherently good, bad, or neutral?
Do you think inanimate objects (and other animals) are inherently good, bad, or neutral?

If you were to ask me the question, my “knee-jerk” response would be…

A saved man is inherently good. A lost man is inherently evil. Inanimate objects and are inherently neutral.

How you answer the above questions pretty much shapes (or affects) just about every view you have. You can tell a lot about a person by knowing the answers to the above questions.

For example, with my answer, inanimate objects are inherently neutral. Therefore, I do not believe alcohol, for example, is good or bad. Neither are certain types of foods, gambling, etc etc… It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out.

So what do you think?

P.S. I use the word inherently for a reason. The reason is that I do not think these are hard set boundaries. A saved person can do “bad” things, however, he is no longer inherently “bad”.

AMDG

Tags:

Comments

3 Comments on Good, Bad or Neutral?

  1. Affective on Sat, 9th Jul 2005 03:14

    2. You mean do I follow: Augustine=inherently evil, Pelagius-inherently good, or John Locke=inherently neutral :). I would be a follower of the first, only because he reflects scripture (Rom.3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-2; Jer. 17:9; etc.).

    It seems that inanimate/amoral “things” truly are neutral, I wouldn’t classify gambling under that category, i.e. it is a moral conception. It seems that the so called “neutral” things become the media through which our “value assigning” feature (our heart) is expressed. Depending on what/who is informing “our heart” will determine how “neutral/inanimate” media are used/manipulated, i.e. for “my glory” or “God’s glory”.

    I would also argue with you, a bit, over the notion that we are no longer “inherently evil”. An analogy from good old Martin Luther might make the point: he says (paraphrasing), that Christians are like a piece of dung covered with a beautiful frosting of white pristine snow. In other words, we are save sinners. II Cor. 5:17, seems to recognize that indeed we are “new creations” but in fact there seems to be an eschatological overtone to this, see II Cor. 5:5. I definitely agree that we have been credited with Christ’s righteouness, but this will not be fully realized until the escaton. I think this view makes sense of passages like Gal. 5:17 when it discusses the struggle between the “flesh and the Spirit.” Like II Cor. 3 adamantly points out, in relationship to the New Cov., we have new hearts, and this indeed defines the “core” who we are now (i.e. rightly related to God, fully restored “imago dei” eshchatologically/think of the “now” and “not-yet” distinction); but we still have the remnants of the old nature and habits tied to our old nature–which hasn’t yet been fully destroyed (I’m not saying we don’t have power not to sin, just that we will continue to struggle with the effects of sin while living in this “fallen” world–destruction of sin is as good as done–just not fully realized yet Rom.8).

    A very thought provoking thread, Brian, thanks!

  2. BA on Sat, 9th Jul 2005 10:26

    3. Just a quick reply…I would like to comment more when I get some time.

    I should not have used gambling as an example as it is not an inanimate object.

    However, I did want to show the “act” (or use) of something. That would include such things as, playing poker, dancing, singing, playing (listening to) certain types of music, drinking alcohol, using musical instruments, etc etc…

    There are certain churches that teach that these things are sins and they need to re-evaluate those teachings with Scripture.

    In addition, my responses to the questions were merely my “knee-jerk” answers.

    If I sit here and think about it, I could make a case that inanimate objects are actually inherently good. God is holding them together and as they sit there doing “nothing” they are actually glorifying Him as the creator.

    AMDG

  3. Affective on Sat, 9th Jul 2005 11:29

    4. Which don’t make them inherently “good.” If God alone is “good” unless he “transfers” His communicable “goodness”, as He did when He created humanity in His image–I would conclude that an inanimate object, like you said earlier is neutral. To me, we can “use” those for good, motivated by the power of the Holy Spirit, which glorifies God. This would emphasize the “instrumentality” of inanimates.

    I think the list you give above, and their relationship to sin, would be tied into “motive.” God is concerned with “why” we do what we do. Why do I want to drink, gamble, etc.?

    Just some quick thoughts.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!