Depravity of Man:The difference between Catholics and n-C Christainity?

[MariaG]

posted by sonseeker # 32

By man’s depravity is meant, that because of the fall, sin permeates every part of man’s nature. His “flesh.” And man remains in that condition, until he is regenerated by the HS. The primary consequence of man’s sin/depravity is separation from God, and that also has the consequence of wickedness, violence, etc. in the world.

I know that I am in opposition to CCC teaching that man’s nature is “wounded.” See Gen 6:5; 8:21; Rom 10:3ff; also Christ’s words Mt 7:11; cf Lk 11:13, and Mt 12:33-34. Regeneration is the thrust of v 33: make the tree good

First off, how on earth did I miss this great thread!

Some really great posts. I also must say, great reference for future discussions (post #26 and 27) as well as this current one.

I was kind of having trouble with this. Although the words “total depravity” I would disagree with, I was having a hard time disagreeing with sonseeker’s explanation. I see you disagree with the wounded part, but really, I was trying to see how wounded and total depravity differ. I thought well maybe I don’t have good understanding of original sin as a revert/convert as I thought.

I started some research and found this

posted in CA Library by James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine,[That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term “radical corruption,” although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term “total inability.”] he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].

What say you guys?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sonseeker]

Hey Michael,

I gotta go from sea to shining sea. That’s an expensive burger!

You said:
Church Militant:

I wonder if our own message shouldn’t be more like that of Jesus himself. Again and again he told people that their sins were forgiven and that they should go and sin no more.

(Let me say this as an aside: I think that the choice of the word “depravity,” is a poor choice. I think the scriptural presentation is better described as “total inability.” Man is, in his unregenerate state, totally unable to do any good. I believe scripture is clear on that. This inability renders man unable to reconcile himself to God, thus the need for the Cross. The depravity side manifests in his sin.)

I can’t argue that He didn’t say that; but, he also said other things that were discouraging to those who wanted to follow Him. He accused them of following for the food for their stomachs, and to seek the true (spiritual) food instead.

He told them, that to be His follower, you had to: (Lk 14:25-25) Hate your family, and your life (v26); pick up your cross (v27); count the cost (v28); count the cost again (v31); give up everything (v33); if you won’t, you are tasteless salt to be thrown away (v35). And finishes with His oft-repeated refrain “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” That’s the problem, the unregenerate cannot hear Him. Sure, he hears the words with his hears, but not with his heart, because his heart is dead (Eph 2:1).

In Jn 8:42-47, Christ illustrates the point that they are deaf and cannot hear Him. He tells them: you don’t love me, because God is not your Father. In v 43 He says, “Why do you not understand me?” He gives them the answer: “*because you **cannot *hear my Words.” (cf Jn 5:25). That’s an idiomatic figure of speech, (metonymy of the cause), in which a noun is substituted for a related noun, i.e., hearing is substituted for the noun of receiving, or understanding what is said. They hear his words, but they cannot understand them. He continues with the reason they cannot hear in v 44. Then in v 45 Christ makes this interesting statement: “Because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.” In v46 He states He is without sin, and then asks again, “If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?” In v 47, He answers the question for them, “He who is of God, hears the word of God.” Interestingly, He frames the statements in vv43 and 46 in the form of a question (another Hebrew idiomatic figure of speech). Christ’s two questions are statements of fact.

An apt illustration is that the unregenerate man is “tuned into the wrong frequency.” He cannot tune himself to the correct frequency to receive the gospel message. Only the HS spirit can tune his heart to hear it. (This explanation may be more appropriate to the “calling” of Rom 8:30, but depravity/inability is still the reason he cannot hear).

You said:
Church Militant:

In thinking about the concept of total depravity, I wonder, from a scriptural point of view if perhaps Romans 1:18 isn’t relevant in that it seems to indicate that the real “total” depravity belongs to those who not only reject the gospel, but suppress it with their wickedness.

I say this with deepest sympathy and conviction: I am convinced that all men suppress the truth until the time that they are regenerated by the HS. (This conflicts with the RCC position on baptism/justification, another topic)./

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #42)

You said:
Church Militant:

I don’t think that St. Paul is saying that all of us are so depraved since we have not all done that and I also wonder if (in your opinion) this depravity of which we speak is still inherent in the nature of man after regeneration.

Read Rom 7:14-25. There Paul discusses the two natures of man, when he is regenerate. He is made alive spiritually, yes, but, that new-birthed spirit is still clothed in the flesh, the container of his sin. There is a war being waged between the flesh, and the spirit of each believer v 23. That war continues until the believer dies. Only when he dies, does the believer stop sinning. I can’t recall Luther’s argument leading up to his “dunghill covered in snow,” statement, but I agree with the metaphor.

You said:
Church Militant:

I kinda think that the concept of mankind as being totally depraved (since God sees all his creation as “very good”.) is more than the context of the whole Bible (and especially the New Testament) implies.

To save space, I answered the same question for Ignatius above in post #36

I can say more, but that is a beginning, basic defense.

Grace,

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

Maria,

Thanks for the Sproul, and Boettner quotes. When I was writing my last post offline, I thought that I should clarify that.

Sproul’s “total corruption,” is also equally descriptive.

Thanks,

Bill

 

[EA_Man]

Church Militant:

Hi EA Man,
So then, by this you mean? I just wanna be sure that we understand what you are saying. Is this more a point concerning predestination…which of course ties in with total depravity, but isn’t specific to it?

I reject predestinaition as well as does the Catholic Church since it denies that man has free will. Now your passage & your commentary seems to affirm that free will since as you point out, Jesus upbraids them for failing to use that free will to come to Him in order to obtain eternal life, right?
Pax vobiscum,

Correct.

I was actually addressing free will but the two are related. I also reject predestination as taught by 5 point Calvinism. I would have to side with the Catholics on these issues.

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Men loved darkness instead of light. The KJV uses the phrase “rather than”. The meaning is clear, there is a CHOICE being made here.

Luke 13:34
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”

Why would Jesus lament the unwillingness of the Jews in Jerusalem if they were “predestined” to be lost or had no free will to respond to the repeated attempts by God to reach them?

God certainly knows the ends from the beginning. That does not however necessitate preordination, which is what Calvinist predestination amounts to.

However, I reject the reasoning that total depravity cannot be true because God would not create anything depraved.

It is true that God would not (or did not) create anything depraved, (Genesis 1:31a - God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. ). However, the result of Adam’s disobedience to God was; separation (broken communion) from God, spiritual death, and all of God’s creation was placed in bondage to sin as well. Romans 8:21 - creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay.

Furthermore, the world we see around us today is NOT the original Creation given to Adam. We had the Flood of Noah’s day for one and secondly, we have had the compounded effects of sin from 6,000 plus years and the billions of people that lived on the earth up to this point. This is certainly not the Creation originally given by God but a twisted, decayed, and corrupted form of it.

So the conclusion that total depravity can not be true does not follow from the premise that God created everything perfectly.

Man is totally depraved in the sense that he cannot help himself out of his sin. His free will allows him to respond to God’s grace.
Although God knows who will accept His gift of salvation which is available to all, that knowledge does not equate to predetermination.

I hope I have made my position clear.
Interesting discussion.

 

[Ignatius]

sonseeker:

Yes, Ignatius, man is made in the image of God, Indeed, God did not make something that was totally depraved. Adam was “good,” then he fell.

I do not see a prejudice, rather a careful reading of scripture.

Bill

Well if we "are being transformed into the same image" as Christ, we cannot be totally depraived.

Also, since the false, man made doctrine of total depravity is an innovation never known until the 16th Century, we can be certain that neither the Apostles nor any of the early Christians, who learned at the feet of the Apostles, had this interpretation.

Yours in Christ.

 

[JimO]

sonseeker:

Catholic Dude,

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think this is important. I too am no St. Thomas. The difficulty I have, is that if anyone, doesn’t matter what religion, takes other than a literal view, it undermines God (how we perceive him, etc.) right from the starting gate. At least it does for me. It truly, “unbalances,” for lack of a better word, my theology. The writer describes the days as literal, 24 hour days. I know that you would agree with me that the creation account, as it is described, is not beyond God’s ability. That is a hugely important starting point for me, in the way I think about God. It does begin to shape my understanding of depravity.

Thanks,
Bill

Hi Bill, welcome to the forums.

I hate to jump in the middle, but I made it this far and had to respond. I’m a geologist and devout Catholic. As a geologist, I have been confronted my entire academic and professional life with reconciling the creation account with evolution and I won’t get into that here. You say that we must take the Scriptures literally, correct? The problem I see is what criteria do you use to establish literal intrepretation? Is that literal in Hebrew and Greek or literal in the English translations of Hebrew and Greek? Because they would be very different “literal” interpretations indeed. The problem I have found with most Protestants that I have debated is that they insist that Genesis must be taken literally and yet when it comes to John 6, all kinds of arm waving comes into play to avoid admitting that Catholics might be correct about the Eucharist. What I guess I’m saying is that nobody interprets the entire Scripture “literally.” Otherwise you’d have people running around gouging out their eyes and cutting their hands off. Besides, due to interlingual translations of Scripture, they cannot and should not be taken absolutely “literally.” Imagine the confusion of someone in Zimbabwe who has a Bible translated from Hebrew/Greek into English into his native tongue. God knew in advance that Scripture would be translated into hundreds of languages and, therefore, had to realize that absolute “literal” translation of Scripture would not be possible. That is why Catholics hold to a living teacher (the Magisterium) who has the sole authority of making the final determination on the meaning of Scriptures.

Please bear with me.

With regards to the creation narrative. I think that it is clear that the narrative was not designed to tell us how creation took place, but to introduce us to who God is, His relationship as Creator to creation, man’s special relationship with Him and to set the stage for how the fall occurred. It wasn’t meant to tell us how creation occurred, but why. One must know the purpose of a passage of Scripture to attempt any interpretation, especially a literal interpretation. The way I describe it to my children is this. Suppose you kept a journal of your day’s activity getting ready for Mom’s birthday. You went to the store and got presents, you bought cake mix and decorations. You came home and wrapped the presents and made the cake. Now, 6,000 years from now someone who doesn’t speak your language and isn’t familiar with our customs takes that journal and tries to use it to bake a cake. Genesis isn’t a “recipe” for creation. It was written for a purpose, which doesn’t include explaining the “hows” of creation.

You claim that we aren’t “believing God” if we don’t adhere to your particular “literal” interpretation of Genesis. Well, I say that we are believing God by taking from Genesis what was meant to be taken - the whys of creation, not the hows. Interpreting Scripture in context does not undermine God’s Word.

For the record, I’m not an evolutionist. When asked, I state that I know several things to be absolutely true. First, God created the heavens and the earth, all living creatures, including man. There were for certain a first man and first woman because the soul had to come from an instantaneous act of creation. Beyond that, how God did it, I simply don’t know and it doesn’t matter. It is enough for me to know that in the beginning God created…

If you insist on an absolute “literal” interpretation of the entire Bible, then I challenge you to read John 6: 30-69, Matt. 26:26-30, Mark 14: 22-25, Luke 22: 31-34, and I Cor. 11: 23-30. Then, tell me why Protestants refuse to believe that Jesus gives us His transubstantiated Body and Blood in the Eucharist. If you try to say that these passages are to be taken symbolically, then how can you say that Genesis, which was passed down through oral tradition from the time of creation until Moses wrote it down, must be taken absolutely literally? I’m sorry, but that position is untenable.

 

[sonseeker]

EA_Man:

I don’t believe that man cannot respond to God as 5-point Calvinists teach.

And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he has sent, him you believe not. You search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And you will not come to me, that you might have life. (John 5:38-40)

In John 5, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they do not have God’s Word abiding in them. He tells them that they do not believe. So clearly, they are spiritually dead. Yet He says to them, “You will not come to Me that you might have life.” Jesus would not upbraid them for not coming to Him for life, if they already had life. These Pharisees were clearly spiritually dead.

Here’s the question: Why would Jesus upbraid them for NOT coming to Him for life, unless they COULD come to Him for life?

You are assuming that a condition of salvation is that a man must be able of his own will to come. (Another topic).

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

EA_Man

You said:

EA_Man:

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Men loved darkness instead of light. The KJV uses the phrase “rather than”.

The meaning is clear, there is a CHOICE being made here.

I will not dispute that a choice is being made, however, you overlook the reason the choice is being made: ***men loved darkness instead of light ***[the reason: **because their deeds were evil].

IOW, there evil deeds prove that they are evil.

***men loved darkness instead of light ***is a figure of speech (metonymy [of the cause]). The verse can be read: ***men loved darkness instead of light ***(and practiced, and lived, and acted, accordingly.)

That has an effect: This is the verdict, also a figure of speech (metonymy [of the effect], see above immediately preceding explanation of the cause of the judgment.)

IOW: They love darkness instead of light, because they are evil. They can only choose darkness.

(see E.W. Bullinger, D.D., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Explained and Illustrated, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 24th printing, April 2004. pp. 556, 565)

You said:

EA_Man:

Luke 13:34
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

"

Why would Jesus lament the unwillingness of the Jews in Jerusalem if they were “predestined” to be lost or had no free will to respond to the repeated attempts by God to reach them?

God certainly knows the ends from the beginning. That does not however necessitate preordination, which is what Calvinist predestination amounts to.

This is a different topic, but I would like to give you something to think about. You are not reading carefully enough.

Note: v34 is a compound sentence with three distinct independent clauses, and two different subjects:

1. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,
2. how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
   3. but you were not willing!

Who is “Jerusalem?” You are assuming that “Jerusalem” is every individual Jew. Why?

Things to think about in v34:

• God sent the prophets to the Jewish leaders, throughout Israel’s history.
• Throughout Her history, Jewish leaders killed the prophets sent to them.
• In the middle of the three clauses, Jesus speaks of “your children.” Those are the ones he desired to save.
• The context refers to leaders, scribes, Pharisees.

Bill

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker:

So then, let me say what total depravity is not. Total depravity does not mean that everyone is as bad as they could be.

In other words, you really don’t believe that man is totally depraved.

It seems to me that you observe the actions of normal human beings, and you have reasonably concluded that man’s nature is wounded. While it is certainly true that an ordinary man has an an inclination to sin that he must strive to resist, that it is also true that even as a non-Christian, man is able to resist at least some evil actions. For example, not every Buddhist is a totally depraved, raping and pillaging murderer.

To use your depraved toddler analogy above, this is what we as parents (I don’t know if you are one), do when we discipline our children. There is that time known as the “terrible two’s.” The kid comes into his own, his sin nature is gearing up …

Please explain what you mean by a “sin nature”. Calvinists invariably use this term, but they never explain what they mean by it. I understand the concept of human nature, and how human nature can be wounded, but I don’t understand how sin can have a nature.

(Let me say this as an aside: I think that the choice of the word “depravity,” is a poor choice. I think the scriptural presentation is better described as “total inability.” Man is, in his unregenerate state, totally unable to do any good. I believe scripture is clear on that.

Scripture certainly does not agree that a non-Christian has the “total inability” to do any good at all. And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?” And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say.” … Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him …”
Acts 10:21-22 & 34-35

 

[Matt16_18]

Zooey:

Mr Wesley taught that the human heart & soul are made to want God, and that God sends prevenient grace (grace that goes before turning to God) to draw us to Himself.

Catholics believe the same thing, although sometimes we will use the term “healing grace” instead of “prevenient grace”. **Catechism of the Catholic Church

2001** The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:”[50]

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.[51]

50 St. Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio, 17L 44,901.
51 St. Augustine, De natura et gratia, 31L 44,264.​

 

[MariaG]

Hi guys,

As I pointed out earlier, according at least to James Akin, the definition of total depravity=wounded. What seems to be disagreed upon is the words total depravity or wounded.

from CA Library by James Akin
The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.

The disagreement from my point of view, as well as James Akin, seems not to be the defintion of man’s nature before he is regenerated, but rather a disagreement on whether it is or can be called total depravity or wounded. The definitions seem the same to me as well as James Akin.

posted in CA Library by James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine…he would actually agree with it.

Do you agree or disagree with James Akin’s assessment?

Total depravity = wounded Yes? or No?

Sonseeker, would you agree that “because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.”

What if anything is added to the definition of total depravity that James Aking did not discuss, and would therefore no longer make it the same definition, not the same words, but the same definition as wounded?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sonseeker]

You said:

JimO:

You say that we must take the Scriptures literally, correct?

Shame on you Jim; you know from the context of my quote that I said the “Genesis Account” must be taken literally. I do not believe that I have stated anywhere on this forum that the Bible must be taken literally. However, I do, with the exception of the writer’s obvious use of figurative language.

You said:

JimO:

With regards to the creation narrative. I think that it is clear that the narrative was not designed to tell us how creation took place…Genesis isn’t a “recipe” for creation. It was written for a purpose, which doesn’t include explaining the “hows” of creation.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but, while it may satisfy your children, it does not satisfy me. I agree with you that Genesis is not a “recipe” for creation; it is, rather, the description of it. Read the scripture Jim. It is all about the “Word.” How did God create? By the “Word.” Remember? “Then God said,” and “Then God said,” and “Then God said,” etc.? You say, Genesis is about “the whys of creation, not the hows;” I say, Genesis is about “the hows, and the whys.”

You said:

JimO:

For the record, I’m not an evolutionist. When asked, I state that I know several things to be absolutely true. First, God created the heavens and the earth…Beyond that, how God did it, I simply don’t know…

You are fence-sitter Jim. Non-committal. Don’t know if it’s symbolic; don’t know if it’s literal. Perhaps you don’t want the wrath of your secular colleagues. I know many Christians who are scientists, and they do not sit on the fence. They take the creation account literally. Dr. Henry Morris (and many of the staff at the Institute for Creation Research, which staff is considerable in size, they have a website, search it out), Ken Ham (he has a website, search it out), Clifford A.Wilson. In fact, below is a quote from C.A. Wilson:

"I* was not always the “literalist” I am today. I’ve always had a profound respect for the Bible, but accepted that the use of poetic forms meant that the record could often be interpreted symbolically where now I take it literally—though of course there are times when symbolism is clearly utilized. Thus in later scriptures “*Egypt” can be a geographic country or a symbolic term.

That literalism is especially true in relation to Genesis chapters 1 through 11, often considered allegorical or mythical, where my researches have led me to the conclusion that this is profound writing, meant to be taken literally. There was a real Adam, creation that was contemporaneous for the various life forms as shown in Genesis chapter 1, and a consistent style of history writing—such as the outlines given in Genesis 1, then zeroing in on the specifics relating to mankind in Genesis chapter 2; the history of all the early peoples in Genesis chapter 10, then the concentration on Abraham and his descendants from Genesis chapter 11 onwards. Early man, “the birth of the lady of the rib,” long-living men, giants in the earth (animals, birds, and men), the flood, the tower of Babel—and much more—point to factual, accurate recording of history in these early chapters of Genesis.

Over 40 years have passed since I first became professionally involved in biblical archeology and my commitment to the Bible as the world’s greatest history book is firmly settled. As Psalm 119:98 states, ‘Forever, O Lord, your word is established in heaven.’ ”

Read his book: *Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability *(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Richardson, TX: Probe, 1977); the above quote is from: John Ankerberg & John Weldon, *Ready with an Answer For the Tough Questions About God *(Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publisher, 1997), p. 276

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #53 above)You said:

JimO:

If you insist on an absolute “literal” interpretation of the entire Bible, then I challenge you to read John 6: 30-69, Matt. 26:26-30, Mark 14: 22-25, Luke 22: 31-34, and I Cor. 11: 23-30. Then, tell me why Protestants refuse to believe that Jesus gives us His transubstantiated Body and Blood in the Eucharist. If you try to say that these passages are to be taken symbolically, then how can you say that Genesis, which was passed down through oral tradition from the time of creation until Moses wrote it down, must be taken absolutely literally? I’m sorry, but that position is untenable.

When Michael (Church Militant) and I were discussing putting this thread together, although he did not ask me to, I told him that I would do my utmost to avoid attacking the RCC and especially Her sacraments. Because of the respect that I have for Michael, and because of his graciousness toward me on this thread, I intend to keep that promise.

So this attack is to you Jim: With respect to the verses above, how is it that you, as a fence-sitter, can now jump down off the fence, and insist on literalism?

I find your position untenable as well, and specious.

As far as the parts of your post I left out, I consider them to be rabbit trails. I promised myself years ago: no more rabbit trails; I intend to keep that promise too.

Bill

 

[RonWI]

At the risk of getting this thread back on track, and given the title of this thread, allow me to provide one “n-C” position on the issue of the depravity of man. It is from the Lutheran Book of Concord (which, by definition, is the Lutheran position):

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article II: Of Original Sin.

1] Also they [the Lutherans] teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

3] They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

From the Defense of the Augsburg Confession (discussing the passage quoted above):

3] This passage testifies that we deny to those propagated according to carnal nature not only the acts, but also the power or gifts of producing fear and trust in God. For we say that those thus born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear and trust in God. What is there here with which fault can be found? To good men, we think, indeed, that we have exculpated ourselves sufficiently. For in this sense the Latin description denies to nature [even to innocent infants] the power, i.e., it denies the gifts and energy by which to produce fear and trust in God, and, in adults [over and above this innate evil disposition of the heart, also] the acts, so that, when we mention concupiscence, we understand not only the acts or fruits, but the constant inclination of the nature [the evil inclination within, which does not cease as long as we are not born anew through the Spirit and faith].

From the Smalcald Articles:

I. Of Sin

1] Here we [the Lutherans] must confess, as Paul says in Rom. 5, 11, that sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin.

2] The fruits of this sin are afterwards the evil deeds which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as [distrust] unbelief, false faith, idolatry, to be without the fear of God, presumption [recklessness], despair, blindness [or complete loss of sight], and, in short not to know or regard God; furthermore to lie, to swear by [to abuse] God’s name [to swear falsely], not to pray, not to call upon God, not to regard [to despise or neglect] God’s Word, to be disobedient to parents, to murder, to be unchaste, to steal, to deceive, etc.

3] This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Ps. 51, 5; Rom. 6, 12ff ; Ex. 33, 3; Gen. 3, 7ff

 

[Zooey]

Ignatius:

Additionally God, being all good, would not create something which is totally depraved.

In fairness–and please remember that I do not believe in utter depravity–I think this does not compute, because God’s intenet in creation is not what we have to deal with. What we have to deal with is a world–& a human race–that are marred by sin, which was/is not God’s creation.

 

[JimO]

So this attack is to you Jim: With respect to the verses above, how is it that you, as a fence-sitter, can now jump down off the fence, and insist on literalism?

I find your position untenable as well, and specious.

As far as the parts of your post I left out, I consider them to be rabbit trails. I promised myself years ago: no more rabbit trails; I intend to keep that promise too.

Bill

Well Bill, When I first read your response I thought that maybe I had been unintentionally rude because that is one of the pitfalls of written communication; however, when I re-read my own post it seems that though direct (in the interest of brevity) I didn’t see that I was being rude. Therefore, I was disappointed to find you resulting to insults and name-calling. I will refrain from responding in kind and simply say that I was not trying to lead you down rabbit holes, treat you like a child, or be presumptuous about your application of literalism. I am truly sorry if I did any of this. It was not intentional. As far as your response goes, I’ll only say that the only people who have treated me with such contempt have been the atheists I have debated. Others have maintained some sense of decorum fitting of brothers in Christ, though separated by doctrinal differences. One of my biggest concerns on these forums is the witness (or lack thereof) that is shown to unbelievers when Christians go at each other.

I want to return to one point that I made early in my first post. From a logical standpoint if one insists on taking a passage of Scripture literally, one would have to be fluent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. A literal interpretation of an English translation is insufficient to understanding the text as it was originally written. One also has to have an understanding of the customs and culture of the author in order to put the text in its proper context.

Lastly, I gave you the briefest glimpse of my personal position on creation and for that you call me a “fence sitter.” It would take several pages to explain my full position and I didn’t want to waste your time or mine in providing what is essentially peripheral information. I won’t go into it now either for the same reasons, but I will say this. I have no concern for the opinions of my colleagues, many of whom have ridiculed and derided me for my position of faith. You have treated me no better with an incomplete understanding of who I am and what I believe. I hope it’s not simply because I am Catholic. In the sense that God spoke and each element of the universe was created, I agree with you that this could be characterized as a “how.” He certainly could have done this in six 24 hour days. He is God. However, let me give you an example of why I say that I simply don’t know the scientific “hows.” In Gen 1: 3-5 God created light and separated day from night and yet it is not until verse 16 that He creates the sun and moon and in verse 18 separates light from darkness. Okay, the atheistic scientist says, “if the sun was not created until the fourth day, then what defined the lengths of days 1 through 3?” That’s a good question. Some Christians who do not hold to the 6 24-hour day theory say that many millions of years could have transpired between the first “day” of creation and the fourth. Some Christians believe that each day of creation equals 1,000 years because of the passage, “a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to the Lord.” Which is it? This is one of many examples that govern why I say that beyond a firm conviction that God created all of creation, I do not know the hows. This is not sitting on the fence. This is dealing with the realities of taking Scripture in context.

I hold no malice for your response and hope that we can continue with a civil exchange of ideas. If not, then perhaps you shouldn’t participate because uncivil exchanges are, at the least, lead to a temptation to sin.

Peace,

Jim

 

[reen12]

Hello, thread participants,

A very interesting thread. Could any of you address the
following, in the* context* of the thread topic?

Orthodox Judaism has no concept at all
of Original Sin. None.

In the OT, God speaks to His people as following:
“Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be
made whiter than snow.”
or
“Even if your mother and father forget you,
I will never forget you,
See? I have written your name on the palm
of My hand.”

This does not sound like Deity talking to the
totally depraved. God speaks of “sins” as in
a person’s personal sins.

So, are we holding that the concept of Original
Sin…nature wounded OR totally depraved… is
a concept *introduced *by St. Paul?

If this were so, why wouldn’t the Jews who were
inspired in writing Genesis, have taken this meaning from
the account of Adam and Eve?

And why would Jesus’ references to “…He knew
what was in them” be a basis for Original Sin?
Any adult human being is aware that people sin all the
time. Or, we know what our fellow men are
capable of.

I’m missing something here,
reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

Orthodox Judaism has no concept at all
of Original Sin. None.

Then why did the psalmist write this: Indeed, in guilt I was born, and in sin my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:7

 

[reen12]

Dear Matt 16_18,

A great point. I have never been able to reconcile
that verse with the lack of a concept of Original Sin in
Orthodox Judaism.

Maybe I’ll start a thread on this, and see if I can
get an answer from someone who is an Orthodox
Jew, unless this point has already been addressed.

Thanks for your response,
reen12