A Correct Way to Understand Unworthiness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NormalBeliever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our unworthiness is related to our sin, and yet only our Creator can heal us of our sin!
Exactly! That’s what the Parable of the Prodigal Son is all about! The father doesn’t tell the son that his sins don’t make him unworthy, and the son is correct when stating that he has become unworthy due to his sins - but the father doesn’t even care about that and accepts the son because he is valuable and important, and even enjoyable. The story doesn’t even need to tell us that the son felt good after that or that the sting of his unworthiness disappeared.

That’s what happens whenever we sin and later go to God - recognising and even feeling a bit bad and guilty, but then being forgiven and washed such that we no longer need to feel the unworthiness due to our sins - and we are forgiven because God loves us, values us and enjoys us, and wants to give us peace and joy.
 
God doesn’t love us because we are good. God loves us because God is good.
While that’s true in the sense of merit and worthiness, it’s good to point out that God also does love the created goodness and value we DO still have as existing beings, even while our nature is fallen and tarred in sin.

As the saying goes: We are dung covered snow-hills, not snow-covered dunghills, after all.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure how anyone would interpret “unworthy” to mean “worthless, ugly, or unlovable” or otherwise lacking in value when we are taught that God created us (He doesn’t make junk), loves us, and Scripture has Jesus pointing out that each of us is “worth more than many sparrows” and is precious in God’s sight.

The man who originally said in Scripture that he was not worthy to have Jesus enter under his roof was obviously not coming at it from the standpoint of “I’m a worthless, ugly, unlovable guy.” He was a Roman centurion and had a reasonably powerful position; he even said that when he told someone to go do this or that, they did it. His basis for saying “I’m not worthy” was that he recognized Jesus had a power far greater than his own. In the same way, we are “not worthy” to receive God because we are sinners and we recognized God is way, way greater than us.

It’s like when John the Baptist said he wasn’t even fit to undo Jesus’ sandal strap. He wasn’t saying, “I, John the Baptist, am a lowly piece of utter trash.” He was saying, “Jesus is so much greater than me, than all of us.”
 
Last edited:
Completely agreed!
  • I’m not sure how anyone would interpret “unworthy” to mean “worthless, ugly, or unlovable” or otherwise lacking in value when we are taught that God created us (He doesn’t make junk), loves us, and Scripture has Jesus pointing out that each of us is “worth more than many sparrows” and is precious in God’s sight.*
That’s true, but there are some who may unfortunately think that, due to “worth” being also a term for value, so the accidental connotations are unfortunately there.

Plus, the somewhat uncomfortable feeling some may get from being unworthy (though not necessarily; one may not to feel anything in order to easily accept it, and even then it’s not that hard to accept, and it’s not all that bad - fear of God is a good thing after all!) makes more sense when viewed in light of what it also necessarily points to - love.
 
Last edited:
I think you missed the point of both the analogy, Chesterton’s words, and in sum the thinking of the Church, which may have been my fault in not clarifying: yes analogies will fall short of the truth, but they only can point towards the truth and not hold all of it, and in this case just like the $100 bill is both cheap and valuable at the same time, man is both worthless (even less than worthless) and of more worth than anything in creation at the same time.

Yes, what God decrees, it becomes; there is no “covering of manure” as some say of Protestant imputation. By the Father’s love, Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit’s gift of Himself, man is able to participate in the life of God and thus has value that makes him stand above all creatures: “You are gods” (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34). He has more worth than any.

But man is still a creature; being made from nothing like all creatures, he is still the chief of nothings. He is worthless. In fact, he is less than nothing: of all the creatures of God, man and angels are the only ones that can defy God’s will.

In the end man’s value is based on Him bearing God. Even the worst sinner has the image of God indelibly imprinted in His soul, because his soul was made in the image of God, and that will forever make him worthy of being saved. That is what Chesterton meant. And yet it is only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as sanctifying grace that man can participate in the life of God. The more one bears God in them, the greater their value is.

As a parting note it is interesting to read St. Thomas Aquinas’ words on the virtues of humility and magnanimity. On humility St. Thomas quoted the twelve degrees of humility by St. Benedict, and he quoted the “seventh” (actually the sixth; St Thomas Aquinas enumerated them in reverse order) as “to think oneself worthless and unprofitable for all purposes” (ST II-II Q161 A6). On magnanimity on the other hand he quotes Aristotle: “whosoever is worthy of little things and deems himself worthy of them, is temperate, but he is not magnanimous,” and “the magnanimous deems himself worthy of great things, and despises others” (ST II-II Q129 A3). He explains the apparent contradiction thus:
There is in man something great which he possesses through the gift of God; and something defective which accrues to him through the weakness of nature. Accordingly magnanimity makes a man deem himself worthy of great things in consideration of the gifts he holds from God…On the other hand, humility makes a man think little of himself in consideration of his own deficiency. (Ibid.)
Or, as St Paul puts it more concisely, “we have this treasure in jars of clay” (2 Cor 4:7).
 
Last edited:
If God loved us for literally no reason other than because He wanted to love us, this would make God irrational since He did something for no reason at all other than a whim to do it.
God can only love what is good; that is how He is. Therefore He loves His creation because all of creation is good, since it is a reflection of His own goodness. And of all creatures He loves man the most because He made us in His own image.

God however did not needed to create creation. If He needs to do anything then He lacks something, and therefore He wouldn’t be God.

If at all He is beholden to love us because of His love for our goodness which is a reflection of Himself. He however never needed to create us. So you can say He is only beholden to His own will, which in turn means He loves us only because of sheer love for us.
 
Last edited:
yes analogies will fall short of the truth, but they only can point towards the truth and not hold all of it, and in this case just like the $100 bill is both cheap and valuable at the same time, man is both worthless (even less than worthless) and of more worth than anything in creation at the same time.
Yes, analogies aren’t meant to be an absolute similarity, but in this case the analogy can clearly lead to nominalism where the value of the thing is extrinsic, making it intrinsically valueless.
  • But man is still a creature ; being made from nothing like all creatures, he is still the chief of nothings. He is worthless. In fact, he is less than nothing : of all the creatures of God, man and angels are the only ones that can defy God’s will.*
Well, being made from nothing simply refers to the fact all of creation was created out of scratch full-stop - there wasn’t some pre-existing thing that was “Nothing” out of which things were actually made. This just means created beings are given their existence at every moment by God, and that they are constantly dependent on God. The humble response then is to be constantly grateful to God for having created us - I mentioned this in my previous posts actually. The essence of that claim is just that we are created by and dependent on God, not “nothing” in a negative, worthless sense of the word. I guess you could say creation is “nothing” in this sense since it doesn’t exist (and therefore have value) on it’s own, but that doesn’t entail creation is actually worthless in a sense, only dependent.

Saying we are “less than nothing” is more obviously hyperbolical and rhetorical, since it’s not really logical for there to be something which is literally less than nothing.

As for the seventh degree of humility, the worthlessness is clearly about merit and having the ability to accomplish things - which is distinct from prior value stemming from love.
If at all He is beholden to love us because of His love for our goodness which is a reflection of Himself. He however never needed to create us. So you can say He is only beholden to His own will, which in turn means He loves us only because of sheer love for us.
This would mean that God loves us just because God loves us, which is circular. But the reason why something that doesn’t yet exist is loved is because it is thought that it would be worth loving and having in the first place, so God’s love for us isn’t just an impulse or a blind decision, but because He thinks us worth loving in the first place. If however you include this as the definition of what “love” is, then your statement is tautologically true.
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling though, NormalBeliever, that we are talking about the same things. You are talking of things as they are right now, and of course from that perspective God has no choice but to love us as we are because we have an inherent dignity, loveliness, and thus worth, and it is harder to see the inherent worthlessness of man as our creation was done long ago. Therefore if I look from your perspective I can (mostly) agree with what you are saying. On the other hand I try to see things as a whole, which is how the Church looks at things, and that is where most of your disagreements come.

Now let me read your latest reply.
 
I actually mentioned this in one of my previous posts about pre-existential and post-existential love. God loves us with a pre-existential love first of all, and even does so right now when keeping us in being. The nature of pre-existential love is already revealed in the family and marriage - parents want to have children and thus love them by willing their existence even before they exist, and the primary motive for love is because the parents consider the children worth having. They think it would be wonderful to have children! Though the children don’t exist and as such don’t have worth, they still have a form of transcendental worth in that they are considered worth having. They are given worth through that. To say otherwise means that the parents don’t consider their children worth having, but just love them for no reason, just because.

In a similar way, for God to love us before we exist means He considers us worth having, and so bestows on us a form of transcendental value - otherwise God just loves us for the heck of it and doesn’t considers us worth loving at all.
 
Last edited:
Yes, analogies aren’t meant to be an absolute similarity, but in this case the analogy can clearly lead to nominalism where the value of the thing is extrinsic, making it intrinsically valueless.
I don’t have that problem though.

And yep, different perspectives, as I can see.
In a similar way, for God to love us before we exist means He considers us worth having, and so bestows on us a form of transcendental value - otherwise God just loves us for the heck of it and doesn’t considers us worth loving at all.
You forgot what you wrote just a few posts ago:
What God says, really does become reality - He commands the universe to exist, and it really does exist. So if God gives value to something, that thing HAS value
Stop beating yourself up with your own arguments.
 
Last edited:
I think what you are forgetting are (1) God has no potentiality and thus is all will, and (2) God is the source of all goodness.

God does not “consider” things, He wills things. And all things He wills are made real, and they are all reflections of His goodness, and thus He cannot help but see Himself in them and thus love them.

You are projecting human weaknesses and limitations on God.
 
Last edited:
Oh! One last thing that I forgot. Answer me this: what is the worth of the good acts of a man in mortal sin in God’s eyes? And what does that say of man’s worth?
 
Last edited:
With regards to my statement that God giving value to something which then has value and is created, I meant to say that God actually does give value to things when He decides that it should have existing value. It’s not just a pretense like us giving money extrinsic worth, but intrinsic reality.

I’m not forgetting anything - I may have been unclear or may not have mentioned it explicitly, but my mention of pre-existential love and post-existential love are all ontological, not temporal. It’s not as if God considered things for a time before creating and then loved them with an additional love; God did this from eternity. The distinction is importantly a logical one.

And keep in mind the analogy between God and creation isn’t literal. Creation isn’t related to God in the same way a photo of food is related to real food (especially if we don’t consider God univocal with creation), and to say creation reflects God just is to say it has goodness and value in it’s own way, which is caused by God who is infinite value and allows creation to truly have value as well. God’s infinity allows Him to both love creation for it’s own sake and for His sake, and He loves the existing goodness things truly have, and the fact they are a reflection of Him just is to say they are valuable as existing.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, good acts in mortal sin acquire no supernatural merit, and the value they do nevertheless have is the natural value they have as being what they are as simple existing things of a generally moral nature.
 
acquire no supernatural merit,
I.e. Neither good enough to save the man, nor evil to condemn him. I.e. worthless.
“If a man has sugar in his mouth, he cannot call his mouth sweet, but the sugar; and so although our spiritual sweetness is admirable, and God Who imparts it is all good, it by no means follows that he who receives it is good.” St. Francis de Sales
 
The same goes with the love parents have for their children - both when they decide to have them, and when they care for them afterwards.
[/quote]

But a lot of parents don’t decide to have children and do not show love for their children. The children are just an accident derived from the pleasure of fornication. Lots of fathers/mothers walk away after they are born and do not care.
 
Last edited:
Please see my post here:
40.png
The Universal Church Non-Catholic Religions
Excerpt from Life and Worship: When we say that we are “unworthy” (sic), we do not always mean the same thing. Sometimes unworthiness comes from a serious sin that turns the guilty one away from God. This unworthiness can be destroyed only by repentance, confession and the forgiveness of God. At other times we feel unworthy because of our weakness and imperfection or simply because the creature must stand in awe before the great holiness of God. This unworthiness is eliminated simply beca…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top