One of the most difficult texts to read in all of Scripture seems to be Romans 3:12 where Paul writes (quoting the Psalms), “No one does good, not even one.” “Of course there are good people," we all want to counter. "Just open your eyes. Even bad people do good things.” We even contend that humans are “basically good” in direct opposition to this text. But the text isn’t ambiguous. So I ask myself, “How did the early church fathers interpret this text?”
The early church fathers read “There is none good; no, not one” with remarkable unanimity and seriousness. They did not treat Paul’s words as exaggeration, nor did they soften them into general moral observations. Instead, they understood the phrase as a literal description of humanity’s condition apart from God’s grace. What varies among them is not whether the statement is true of all people, but how they explain the depth and cause of that universal condition.
Origen (early 3rd century) interprets the phrase as a theological diagnosis of humanity “in Adam.” For him, Paul is not denying that people can perform outwardly virtuous acts; rather, he is saying that no one possesses the kind of goodness that counts as righteousness before God. Origen emphasizes that even the most virtuous pagan philosophers fall short of divine goodness because their virtue is not rooted in the knowledge of the true God. Thus, “none good” means “none good in the way God defines goodness.” Righteousness must be given, not achieved.
John Chrysostom (late 4th century), the great preacher of Antioch and Constantinople, takes Paul’s words as a deliberate leveling of all humanity. In his homilies on Romans, he stresses that Paul’s purpose is to “cut off all boasting” by showing that no one, Jew or Gentile, has any natural claim to righteousness. Chrysostom interprets “none good” as referring to the inward disposition of the heart rather than outward deeds. People may appear good, he says, but no one naturally seeks God or fulfills His will without divine help. Chrysostom’s reading is pastoral and moral, but it is also uncompromising: the human heart is bent away from God unless God intervenes.
Ambrosiaster (4th century), whose commentary on Romans was widely read in the West, interprets the phrase in a way that anticipates Augustine. He argues that Paul is describing the universal corruption inherited from Adam. For Ambrosiaster, “none good” means that all people are born with a nature inclined toward sin, and therefore no one can claim goodness before God. He does not deny that believers can become righteous through grace, but he insists that no one begins in that state. His interpretation is one of the clearest early articulations of what would later be called original sin.
Augustine (late 4th-early 5th century) takes the fathers’ consensus and systematizes it. For him, Romans 3:10-12 is a foundational text proving that humanity is universally sinful and incapable of doing good without grace. Augustine repeatedly cites “none good” in his debates with Pelagius, arguing that if even one person could be good without grace, Paul’s argument would collapse. Augustine reads the phrase as absolute: no one, apart from God’s regenerating work, does good in the sense that God requires. His interpretation is the most rigorous, but it is not a departure from earlier fathers—it is a sharpening of what they already affirmed.
Even fathers who emphasize human freedom, such as Justin Martyr or Clement of Alexandria, still acknowledge that Paul’s statement describes humanity’s natural state apart from divine aid. They do not interpret “none good” as referring only to particularly wicked individuals. Instead, they see it as a universal truth about fallen humanity: goodness, in the full biblical sense, is impossible without God.
In short: The early church fathers consistently interpret “There is none good; no, not one” as a literal, universal statement about humanity’s condition apart from grace. They differ in how they explain the mechanics of sin and grace, but they agree that Paul means exactly what he says. No father treats the phrase as hyperbole, and none restrict it to a subset of humanity. For them, Paul is describing the spiritual reality of the human race in Adam—a reality that only God’s grace can overcome.
10 comments:
Thank the Holy Spirit that now we have the clarification of this verse against these great minds in the teaching of the likes of Dan that we are good enough without grace to earn our way into God's grace. The Holy Spirit has been remisce in confirming what He meant through Paul for 2000 years, but He finally got it right through Liberal theologians.
This is convincingly well stated and informative.
Out of curiosity and in the pursuit of continuity, are you able to summarize the preeminent Protestant Reformers’ views as well?
As a matter of coincidence, Lorna, I have already written a second post on this topic, giving the viewpoints of a variety perspectives, starting with the Reformed view. It's cued up for tomorrow already.
Good to hear. (Tomorrow is Saturday / News Weakly, but I’ll “hold that thought,” as they say.)
“Of course there are good people," we all want to counter. "Just open your eyes. Even bad people do good things.” We even contend that humans are “basically good” ….
I can’t offer any rebuttals not already said by others, but I am always struck by the illogical nature of such a contention. For humans to distinguish “basically good people” from “particularly wicked individuals” among us is a completely relative exercise, requiring a subjective, sliding scale. On such a spectrum, when does “good” become “wicked” and how much of one behavior causes a person to fall solidly into one category rather than the other? Who sets these standards and what causes them to change--i.e. which humans qualify to judge “good” and “wicked” and in-between? We can see that it’s impossible to even judge people’s natures by their behavior, since “even bad people do good things” (wouldn’t’ that make them “good people”?) Of course, that last observation only serves to confirm the biblical teaching, as the “good” that we see being done is simply a case of “bad people do[ing] good things.” I assume that those who would reject Paul’s teaching claim that both “bad people do good things” and “basically good people do bad things”--which makes me ask, what is it, then, that makes “bad people” bad and “good people” good, i.e. before that out-of-character behavior occurred? As I said, it is all illogical and unreasonable to me--as denying clear biblical truth usually is!
Is there any other to read "none good" other than none good? It seems like the only alternative is to redefine "none" to "not none", and "good" to "things I individually think are good". Which is pretty much Dan's M.O. on the topic.
If good is defined by YHWH and His character, then there is no possibly way for humans to be good on our own.
Sorry ... Monday. Sunday is Mother's Day.
Just recently (on 5/17/26), Dan Trabue sought to answer my above questions at his blog; quite predictably, he was not at all successful. Also unsurprisingly, in his replies, he appealed to purely subjective principles such as what might be considered as “harm,” “abuses of human rights,” “common sense guidelines,” “moral reasoning,” etc.--all open to personal interpretation by all sorts of people, of course. He suggested that we differentiate “good” people from “wicked” people by their intentions during their “active” behavior--as if that were practical, relevant, or even possible!
Alas, what Dan saw as “rational, common sense answers to [my] type of questions” perfectly demonstrated the dilemma I described in my above comment. (He disparaged human theories, all the while resorting to them alone in his reasoning!) Ironically, Dan lamented that he can’t get conservatives to see the holes in their arguments, while his own blind spots keep him from seeing “the pot calling the kettle black.” In any event, my thanks to Dan for unintentionally but soundly proving that the objections I expressed above cannot be addressed satisfactorily in a reasonable and rational manner.
P.S. I was not the Anonymous commenter at Dan’s post of 5/18/26, but I do wonder the same thing he/she did. Despite Dan’s insistence, I for one don’t believe for one minute that he truly wishes to understand any of the ideas that are discussed at Winging It but is, rather, hoping to convince those of us on solid ground to join him on his precarious perch. Thanks, but no thanks!
Lorna,
Your point that we judge good on a subjective sliding scale is spot on. But to go further, we judge actions and apply this subjective standard to only actions. We then infer that the person is a good person. One problem with this concept is that it runs counter to Scripture. Not just the "no one is good" aspects that Stan is focusing on, but the repeated condemnation of people doing good actions for the wrong reasons. Jesus seems pretty clear that our motivation is at least as important as our actions.
The next problem I see is that if a person who engages in some observable good actions, is therefore a good person, then shouldn't a good person be rewarded by YHWH? Shouldn't a good person be welcomed into the Kingdom of YHWH? This attitude seems to lead to a salvation based solely on works, which is counter to Scripture as well.
Finally, it ignores the reality that people's public actions don't always reveal the True character of that person. Does the fact that Hitler did some good things make him a good person?
The parable of the sheep and goats makes the point your raise very well. The sheep acted like sheep because they were sheep. They didn't become sheep because of their actions, their actions came from what they really were.
It does seem illogical to base such important conclusions, on such limited evidence.
I appreciate the feedback, Craig, and the additional good thoughts. Even though Dan claims we are not thinking through our “arguments” or addressing their “holes,” that is clearly not true. I for one cannot see a rational way to understand human nature other than through the biblical position: We are beings with a core sinful nature; we can amend our behavior but cannot reform the nature.
Post a Comment