So, I've been wrestling with this for a few days. If mankind is as truly "utterly depraved" as othodox Christianity says, why are we then supposed to "assume the best about others" and "give them the benefit of the doubt" as we're always admonished to do? Assuming the best about others as they're totally depraved seems like two incompatible mindsets to me. ???
I believe that we all choose to sin. The theme of personal choice when it comes to sin and righteousness is very clearly taught everywhere in Scripture. I think that people who debate the concept of original sin and utter/total depravity tend to focus overmuch on free will and not nearly enough on the fact that we all have been created with a conscience that teaches us right from wrong, and good from evil. I therefore absolutely do not believe in the doctrine of "utter depravity" by default, although obviously if one continuously violates their own conscience and surrenders themselves to sin long enough, there is certainly the potential to become utterly corrupted and having one's conscience "seared". But, God is able to restore a dysfunctional conscience at any moment, as a person again chooses righteousness and resolves to turn their back on sin and evil. We all have the same freedom of choice (AKA "free will"); to either work with our conscience or against it. We're not greater than God, and we're never beyond His reach. Ever. The Bible clearly teaches that whatever you choose to surrender yourself to will become your master. Whether that's sin or righteousness. If utter depravity was actually a thing, the Bible would not have (for example) considered Cornelius a "righteous man" (he wasn't even a Jew, but a Roman! gasp!). If righteousness wasn't possible, the book of Proverbs with its constant warnings and encouragements to do the right thing, wouldn't exist. In fact, the world is full of righteous people who heed their God-given conscience, care for others rather than harming them, are very charitable, etc. Because God's grace is freely available to all, at any moment (whether they're aware of it or not, doesn't matter). To say that people are incapable of righteousness before they consciously turn to Christ, or that God does not give everyone grace to choose righteousness rather than sin, is to contradict the fact that God is omnipotent and rules fully over His creation. The doctrine of "total depravity" (in my mind) effectually makes sin greater than righteousness, it makes evil greater than good, and it discounts the power and involvement of God in people's lives. Which to me personally is incomprehensible. The doctrine of "total depravity" also clearly contradicts the statements of Jesus Himself who said that evil can actually be overcome by good, and that darkness can actually be overcome by light. You can only overcome the lesser with the greater; not the other way around! If utter depravity was a thing, then small children would commit all sorts of evils right away, and Jesus would not have said that the Kingdom of God is made up of little children, and He would not have stated that "unless you all become as little children, you cannot see the Kingdom of God". Sin and evil have to be chosen and grown into. They don't control people by default. The concept of original sin was actually taught beginning in the 2nd century by Irenaeus and then further developed by Augustine, who also established (invented?) many "doctrines" that people still believe today. Many Christians out there are in fact "Augustinians" without knowing it. Feel free to do some research on him and you'll readily see where the Western church gets many of its doctrines and Bible interpretations from. I agree with Augustine on a lot of things, and I also disagree with him on a lot of things. Do your own research into early church history, and arrive at your own conclusions, but do educate yourself. Because a lot of what people believe today was actually taught centuries after Scripture was written and long after the apostles died. It wasn't always so. Doctrine has actually morphed quite a bit, and has been argued about, and defined and re-defined for like, ever.
Lots of good points in Dani's post. It's always worth applying the 1Th5:21 approach of "test all things" to any teaching to make sure it is actually based on Scripture and not on folklore or popular belief. It can be a frightening path to follow at times - some time ago I started to question just about everything due to a very specific trigger, to the extent that one day my wife asked me straight whether I even had a faith in God at all. My reply to her at the time was the line from the hymn "I know that my redeemer liveth", and that was basically what was left. On the topic of "utterly depraved" (which is pretty much the U from the TULIP of Calvinistic teaching), I don't see mankind as utterly depraved in that sense. As Dani said many people were described in Scripture as being righteous, which rather blows away the idea we are all utterly depraved. I believe we can be utterly unworthy when put beside an utterly holy God yet without being utterly depraved in the sense we can't do anything right.
Actually the U stands for Unconditional Election. Utterly depraved is what some people call Total Depravity. Which is where the T comes from. Total Depravity Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints
Viewing mankind from Gods perspective. There are no gray areas. We are either totally saved, or totally lost. Totally good, or totally bad. Perfect, imperfect. We have the totally Perfect, dying in the stead of the totally depraved. We are in this world, but no longer of this world. Even at our worst, Jesus loved us enough to die for us. We can at least love those who Jesus also loved.
Both Arminians and Calvinists agree on Total Depravity, which does not mean that unsaved man is incapable of good acts. Jesus said that even evil men known how to give good gifts to their children. Total depravity means that no man seeks God of his own nature, being incapable of experiencing or seeking God absent the grace of God. Arminians and Calvinists differ a great deal on how people or why people experience that initial grace.
I like to try and assume the best from all I meet, and certainly enjoy being trusted in like manner. Even unbelievers understand the uncertain pitfalls of human nature and common sense safeguards are realistic and needful. But to expect moral failure from an unknown individual is to hold him in prejudgment and to accuse him. I think that more often than not, trust encourages and helps to bring out the best in in folks. There are the unfortunate exceptions.
Outsider opinion: Why does it have to be either or? I give people hte benefit of the doubt because of how many times I was championship level d-bag. The idea that "men don't seek God on their own" seems to propose more about people's motivations than anyone else can actually know. Its a little too much Sye Ten Bruguncate for me, which means its about as welcome to my mind as a bullet.
I must admit, I looked that up. I thought it was some latin saying only to discover its a person's name.
You're not a Christian, so I get why you have the mindset of humanism that says man is essentially good and, in time, mankind will eventually figure out how to solve all it's problems, put aside differences, and make the world a great place to live. However, most Christian denominations believe in various concepts of original sin that basically says mankind is not inherently good, but is fallen in inherited sin and bent towards doing wrong more often than doing right. That being the case, I'm not sure why we're then supposed to automatically assume people have good intentions and motivations. Doing so may make for smoother and more pleasant interactions with people but, theologically, it doesn't make sense to do so.
I'd swear a thousand oaths upon your god if it would stop you from greasing your arm to the hair pit, jamming it so far down my throat you can feel yesterday's feces converted food, and dropping in words I didn't say. Swap the grease for reading glasses. Damnation, I'll never get the taste out of my mouth. You didn't ask about "original sin". You ask why you should give someone the benefit of the doubt? Because people give *YOU* the benefit of the doubt all the time. Its the golden rule man. Instead of worrying where the letter of the law is so you can give people their minimum legal amount of compassion, why not just imagine what its like if everyone stopped giving *you* the benefit of the doubt.
If your theology can't be actually proven in reality, then your theology is wrong. In fact, a lot of what calls itself "theology" is really so much blah blah blah because there's absolutely zero practical application in reality for any of it. You can easily tell that when people in real situations come to someone for advice, and get bombarded with the most ridiculous nonsense you ever did hear, based on supposed "theology" which only ever works in fantasyland, really. But many don't bother actually critically thinking things through until a situation happens to them personally. Then watch their decisions and compare those to their supposed "theology" and you can see where the glaring gaps are. God only ever operates in reality, never in fantasyland. Sound theology is always highly practical and 100% doable. Like HisLeast said, if you appreciate getting the benefit of a doubt from others, then give it. If you don't appreciate others always treating you with suspicion, then don't always treat everyone else with suspicion. Be consistent. Because Golden Rule. The end.