Total Depravity - 2

Here is some more detail on the subject in response to Ellen's comment.

Although Presbyterians aren't the only ones to hold to something like this, and although there is some disagreement even among them as to how to understand this, the Westminster Confession of Faith says this in Chapter VI, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof:

I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions (source; emphasis added).

The particular page from which this quotation is drawn doesn't include the Scripture proofs that the writers of the Confession included with it, but the hard copy that I've got does. Romans 3:10-18 is included as a proof for paragraph II's last clause ("...and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body").

It isn't hard to see where some folks have drawn their inspiration for reading Romans 3 in the unpleasant (and, as I think that I've shown, incorrect) way that I previously described.

The same perspective may be seen in the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 25:

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin,[93] the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually;[94] which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions[95] (emphasis added).

The numbers in that quotation are links in the original source to the the official scripture proofs for this question; #94 appeals to Romans 3:10-19 as an authority. It's interesting to note that the Catechism differs from the WCF by the insertion of a word into the phrase "made opposite unto all that is spiritually good," which may be the justification for those Presbyterians who affirm that non-Christians can do real good of some sort; but the "wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually" part does seem to take away what was just given.

The same sentiments are also expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?

Answer: Indeed we are; except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Interestingly, the Heidelberg does not appeal to Rom. 3 to justify this statement. Of course, that doesn't make it any less mistaken.

By way of contrast, a less severe attitude is evinced in the Canons of Dordt, in The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine:

Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

By this measure, a non-Christian would be able to do genuine good, it seems - but not anything that could be categorized as a "saving good." Of course, no Catholic would disagree with this: we cannot save ourselves; rather, we are saved by the grace of God.

Lastly, it's probably worth pointing out again that there are Presbyterians and Reformed who would interpret the Westminster Standards and the Heidelberg Catechism in a manner consistent with what Dordt says; such folks would conceded that non-Christians can do genuinely good things. But not all of them will say this. I have personally argued with the more severe sort.