Are There "Good People" In the World, Biblically Speaking? What About Their "Sinful Natures"?
A friend posted this meme/quote on Facebook awhile back:
I grew up in a church that focused on the "no one is good but God” passage out of context and argued that there is not a single “good” person on earth (other passages were also proof-texted to make the argument). Frankly, that argument REALLY annoys me because there are plenty of counter-examples that people like my former pastor and R.C. Sproul seem to ignore. Let’s start by looking at the passage in context.
First, from Mark 10:
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And now from Luke 18:
And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.
Hmm… if we're taking Jesus' response to the rich young ruler's flattery LITERALLY, then Jesus was saying that He, Himself (as a human being) wasn't good. And that would contradict Sproul’s statement in the meme. Jesus was not going to accept flattery, even if it was more true about Him than any human who every lived.
And then what do we do with Jesus' own statement that there are good people?
"The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil."
Luke also seemed to think there were good people in the world:
"Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God."
"[Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord."
Apostle Paul was also asserted that there were good people (and distinguished them from “righteous” people, with the “good” people being a lower category than “righteous” - which is interesting, because it COULD be taken to imply that there are unrighteous people who are “good” people):
"For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Sproul’s statement, while pithy and catchy and initially appearing to be accurate and doctrinally sound… isn’t.
Proverbs (at least) three times mentions good men:
“A good man obtains favor from the LORD, but a man of evil devices he condemns.”
“A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, but the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.”
“The backslider in heart will be filled with the fruit of his ways, and a good man will be filled with the fruit of his ways.”
Finally, the ENTIRE POINT of the book of Job is that bad things DO happen to good people (other than Jesus).
"And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.”
RC Sproul's statement is simply not true if one takes the Bible seriously.
To be clear, I have no problem agreeing with the ideas that: (1) Jesus Christ is the only human being who lived without sin His entire human life; and (2) that “None is righteous, no, not one”… in a certain sense.
But even there in Romans 3, we can’t just take the phrase out of context. Look at it in context:
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
It is observably true that all humans (save Christ) reject God and sin - thus they all need salvation. In THAT sense, they all are not righteous.
But it is also observably true that some do eventually seek for God, do good, understand, AND EVEN BECOME RIGHTEOUS.
These passages are all from the Old Testament - BEFORE Christ came, lived, died, and rose from the dead. Christ’s righteousness from living a sinless life could not yet be imputed to those people in the Old Testament, yet they’re referred to as righteous:
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God."
"The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins."
"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning."
"When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die."
"An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked."
"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked."
"... if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul."
"Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel."
"The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace."
And how about one more:
"There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evildoing."
Doesn’t that sound a lot like Job’s situation? And doesn’t that completely contradict R.C. Sproul’s statement in the meme?
But then we shouldn’t be surprised, as R.C. Sproul was a Calvinist who preached “total depravity” because of “original sin” (along with the other four points of the five points of Calvinism). Or as Sproul would put it, “In biblical terms, that means from the core or the very center of our existence… that we all are born with a corrupt nature.”
I do NOT agree that human beings are born with a corrupt nature. Adam and Eve were not created with a corrupt nature, were they? Weren’t they living in conditions more ideal (Eden) than have ever existed since them? Weren’t they walking with God in the Garden? Yet they still sinned.
James explains how ALL humans sin - Adam, Eve, and the rest of us:
"… each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."
Desire (of the flesh) gives birth to sin…
That’s how Adam and Eve sinned… and it’s how every person since Adam and Eve has sinned. We don’t need some mysterious “sin nature” to explain how/why people sin. All we need is “flesh” - which, incidentally, is the Greek word that is often translated to “sinful nature” in English translations:
https://biblehub.com/greek/4561.htm
Don’t you find it curious that a word so plain as “flesh” would be translated as “sinful nature”? Why would translators do that?
Our flesh desires things. When those desires would lead to sin, we can either give in to those desires, or we can deny those desires. That is all that is necessary to explain sin.
If you’re interested in more discussion of why “original sin” and the “sin nature” concepts are not, in fact, Biblical, see the links below from Dr. Peter Enns and Dr. Michael Heiser:
1. Inherited sinfulness is not one of the curses on Adam.
... All three parties are cursed by God for this act of disobedience, and those curses have lasting consequences for the human drama. Fair enough, but note the consequences for Adam: from now (1) growing food will be hard work, and (2) death will be a fact of life.
Note what is not said: “And a third thing, Adam. From now on all humanity will be stained by your act of disobedience, born in a hopeless and helpless state of sin, objects of my displeasure and wrath.”
If Genesis did say that, it would clear up a lot. But it doesn’t.
2. Throughout the Old Testament, pleasing God through obedience is both expected, commanded, and doable.
Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read that humanity is under God’s condemnation simply by being born and therefore helpless to do anything about it, and thus no actions are truly pleasing to God.
3. With one exception, Adam disappears after Genesis 5.
After Genesis 5, Adam wanders off the Old Testament stage until 1 Chronicles 1:1, the beginning of the nine-chapter list of names in 1 Chronicles 1-9. Adam’s name is first (of course), but he’s just one name along with the pages of other names. He’s not the bad guy.
Throughout the entire rest of the Old Testament story, Adam doesn’t even warrant a mention. If Adam was really the person who set the whole world on a downward sin cycle, again, I’m not sure why it’s kept such a big secret.
4. Adam is not blamed for Cain’s act of murder.
... If Cain’s act were caused by a hardwired state of sinfulness due to what Adam did, here is where you would mention it—at least hint at it. Instead, Cain’s act is seen as a repeat of Adam’s disobedience rather than a result.
God asks Cain, “Why are you angry?” as if it’s not obvious, and then offers Cain the same choice the law would later offer the Israelites.” You’ve got a choice, Cain. Make it a good one.” He didn’t. And the fact that Adam already “had it in him” to disobey suggests that Cain’s choice to sin was, like his father’s, not imposed on him from elsewhere.
5. Likewise, Adam is not blamed for the flood.
God wipes out all life in a flood because of the complete and thorough mess humans have made of it all. But look at Genesis 6:6-7. There we see that this escalation of sinfulness, which has now reached its boiling point, seems to take God by surprise.
He doesn’t say, “Well, of course, we all saw this coming, what with Adam’s disobedience in the Garden and all. I just wanted it to get really bad before I acted.” Rather, God is “grieved” and “sorry” about how out of hand all this has gotten.
5 Old Testament Reasons Why “Original Sin” Doesn’t Work
Romans 5:12, translated properly (as in the NRSV and other translations), says: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—“
The “one man” is, of course, Adam. And Paul seems to be saying, quite clearly in fact, that death spread because all have sinned. Now what that means exactly needs some clarification, but that isn’t the issue here.
The issue is that Augustine, working from a poor Latin translation of Romans 5:12, has “in him” where the Greek has “because.”
You can see the problem. Augustine’s reading is that death spread to all because all sinned [in Adam]. In other words, death spread to humanity because all humanity was somehow “present” in Adam’s act of disobedience.
This bad reading of Romans 5:12, rooted in a bad Latin translation of the Greek, has led to the notion that all humans are culpable (guilty) with Adam for what Adam did—all humanity sinned in him.
Augustine’s reading is what many Christians believe Paul actually said, and which is why Augustine’s notion of “original sin” is defended with such uncompromising vehemence as the “biblical” teaching. But neither Romans nor Genesis or the Old Testament supports the idea.
Was There a “Fall” or Did Augustine Really Screw Everything Up?
“Here is the series of posts on Romans 5:12. I do not take the traditional view — that the verse is about the transmission of Adamic guilt. I think it is inserted into the text. However, all humans are sinners (presuming they are allowed to live) and in need of Christ for salvation (i.e., salvation is only through Christ and is not merited in any way).”
“My question, to start the ball rolling, is simple: If ALL humans since Adam inherited Adam’s guilt (however that happens), then why does Jesus get off the hook? He is 100% human in biblical theology. His genealogy goes straight back to Adam (see Luke 3:23-38; esp. v. 38).
Now, I know what the standard answers are. “Oh, Jesus was God, so he didn’t have original sin.” This avoids the question; it doesn’t answer it: he’s was also 100% human. To deny that is deny the incarnation It wouldn’t be a real or actual incarnation then). How about “He was virgin born, and we all know that sin is transmitted through the male-after all, Jesus is compared to Adam in Romans 5, not Eve.” Also evasive and poorly thought-through. I would hope it’s clear that all women are also sinners and have original sin (if original sin is a thing). Mary was a woman, and she was the mother of Jesus. There is also no verse in the Bible that says sin is transmitted through only males.
Another problem – so, if we cloned a woman and implanted that clone in another woman, would it be sinless since there was no male father? Of course not – to be human is to be under the curse of Adam. But this is a modern illustration of the same logic as theologians use to get Jesus off the hook (i.e., to stiff arm Romans 5:12 when it comes to Jesus). The problem is straightforward: we either assume the full humanity of Jesus or we don’t. The full humanity of Jesus–laid out so clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament–isn’t what’s causing the original sin problem with him; it’s the way we understand original sin and misuse Romans 5:12.
I could add that, isn’t it curious how NOWHERE ELSE in the Old Testament do we see any writer looking back to Genesis 3 as an explanation for the transmission of sin to all humankind? Kind of curious, to say the least. And there’s yet another problem.
How is it that we get hard nosed about ALL humans being infected by the sin of the first Adam, but we want to qualify the effect of the sacrifice of the second Adam? You know why – we want to avoid universalism. But then what do we do with Romans 5:18
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
And to compound the problem, does Paul contradict himself in the very next verse:
19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
(Many? I thought ALL were made sinners by the one man, Adam – huh?)
You may not have reflected on it before, but these problems stem from the traditional view of Romans 5:12 articulated by Erickson (and countless others). My view is that it’s a transmitted tradition, mostly due to the influence of Catholicism (taken up by Protestantism) and people have not thought about it for centuries, being content with “answers” to the problems that really aren’t answers.
I have a solution to this issue (not original to me, but I’ve nuanced it a bit), but it involves a completely different take (one that is distinctly ancient Near Eastern in approach – there I go again, contextualizing the Old Testament!).”
If you find the material on this blog interesting, please subscribe here: