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

[Matt16_18]

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

Paul did not write Genesis! Genesis tells the story of the first (original) sin of man.

The total depravity of man is a doctrine that was made up by the first Protestants. No early Christians talked about men being totally depraved.

Any adult human being is aware that people sin all the time. Or, we know what our fellow men are capable of.

Quite so. No one needs to read Genesis to know that people sin all the time. But why is that?

Genesis tells us is that God did not create our first parents as sinners. Sin entered the world because our first parents freely chose to be willfully disobedient to God. Because of that choice for disobedience, all of mankind suffers effects from our first parent’s original sin, and one of those effects is that people now sin all the time.

The doctrine of original sin is states that the sinfulness of man is the fault of man, not God. It was not God’s will for Adam and Eve to be disobedient, their choice for sinful disobedience was entirely theirs, and because of their bad choice, all humans now suffer.

To make an analogy, grandfather gives his son a large inheritance with the intention that his son and his grandchildren live happy lives. But the son becomes a wastrel and loses the inheritance on a dissipated life. The grandchildren suffer the consequences of their fathers’ bad choices, since they don’t receive the inheritance that their grandfather intended them to have. Grandfather’s intention was for his son’s family to be happy, but the son’s bad choices made the whole family miserable.

To complete the analogy, God intended for Adam and Eve to live happily in Paradise bringing forth children in Paradise. But Adam and Eve freely chose to be disobedient to God, and the consequences of their disobedience is that all of creation fell, and the entire physical world became subject to disease, death and decay.

The good news is that God will free creation from its bondage from decay when the children of God receive their glorified bodies at the resurrection of the dead. Catholics and Orthodox Jews certainly should not be divided over either the doctrine of original sin, or the restoration of creation at the resurrection of the dead, since Catholics received both these doctrines from the Jews.

 

[Zooey]

sonseeker:

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

On behalf of Methodists, may I point out, that we do not consider this another topic. The fact that a person can will to come to God, is, for us, an essential proof that humanity is not in a state of utter depravity. The argument runs:
People are saved, are in the process of being saved,& ultimately can be saved; therefore, we are not depraved.
OK, carry on, you all…

 

[reen12]

Hi, Matt16_18,
“Catholics and Orthodox Jews certainly should not be divided over either the doctrine of original sin, or the restoration of creation at the resurrection of the dead, since Catholics received both these doctrines from the Jews.” quote, Matt16_18

It is my understanding that Orthodox Judaism does not* have*

a concept of Original Sin:

jewfaq.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?Keywords=original+sin

Paul was a Jew, and, as such, would not have been taught original sin.

So, my question still remains:
How to reconcile Ps.51:7 the verse you pointed out]
with no concept of original sin in Judaism.

I’ve started a new thread to see if I can find an answer to this.

Thanks for your response,
reen12

 

[O.S.Luke]

Zooey:

On behalf of Methodists, may I point out, that we do not consider this another topic. The fact that a person can will to come to God, is, for us, an essential proof that humanity is not in a state of utter depravity. The argument runs:
People are saved, are in the process of being saved,& ultimately can be saved; therefore, we are not depraved.
OK, carry on, you all…

Actually… Zooey… Methodists do believe in Total Depravity. John Wesley affirmed the notion of human depravity, believing that sin utterly corrupted human moral nature, rendering man incapable of moving toward God or salvation. Wesley offered as a companion doctrine, however, the idea of prevenient grace, by which God enables humans—in spite of their depravity—to respond to Christ. It is, in effect, God making the initial move in salvation, empowering humankind to respond.

If one believes in original sin… it’s hard NOT to see human beings as depraved. But we can get over it.

O+

 

[Church_Militant]

(continued from post #53 above)You said:

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
My friends,
Gentlemen, please don’t get into a spitting contest as I have re-read both your posts and I think that you are just sort of missing each other in passing. I don’t think that JimO meant his statements as an attack Bill. They were really just straightforward comments, not meant the way you took 'em. It happens from time to time because in a written format like this it’s hard to say things that would usually involve tone of voice etc (hence my use of emoticons like this).

Keep in mind that all of us have some strong emotions tied to our faith and that they can readily hop out and run wildly up and down our words, or sometimes do the same to the other guy’s words as well, and that causes misunderstandings. I usually try to dump my first emotional response when I reply unless the poster in question has been openly rude or nasty. :irish1:

Please back up attempt to assume the very best of each other, remembering 1st Corinthians 13.

Finally, I am gonna sort of be out of pocket for a few days because my sainted 80 year old mother is dying in the hospital, so I beg your prayers for her and all of us. She has been a devout Catholic all her life and even as she has suffered with Alzheimer’s has attended Mass and received the Sacrament of the Sick yesterday. Now we simply pray for the graces of a happy, peaceful, and painless passing into the arms of Our Lord. My mom’s name is Mary.

May the love of God the Father, the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all my friends.

 

[reen12]

Dear Michael,

Please know that I am praying for your mother,
Mary, and for you.

May she rest in your arms and in your love.

Michael, I read your post soon after I returned from the
nursing home, where my mother, who has
advanced Altzheimer’s is.

All I can think of is what a priviledge it is for
sons and daughters to provide comfort
and care and love for their mothers, as they
provided the same for us when we were
weak and vulnerable.

May Jesus comfort your heart and be with
your Mom.

Maureen [reen12]

 

[Zooey]

Luke, Luke, Luke…We Methodists do seem to argue with one another, don’t we?? But I was not suggesting that as a Methodist, I do not believe in Original Sin. Nor am I denying that sin is, if you will, an infection which has spread to the entire human race. (If it had not, less drastic action than the cross would have surely been effectual).
But that is, I insist, not the same as the total depravity of our Calvinist brothers. Prevenient grace would have no soil in which to grow, were there nothing left in us of the image of God.
If I may play with words? We are not utterly depraved; we are, however, utterly deprived of the possibility of communion with God.We are sinful creatures…I think that no one here would deny that. But we are:nope: not the [probably apocryphal]“snow covered dunghills” of Luther. We are a strange mix of things…We bear the (marred) image of God, even as we struggle to attain purity of lives.We acknowledge our inability to save ourselves from ourselves. But then there is:heart: the grace of God…“glorious, matchless grace, freely bestowed”…How can this grace appear to us, if we are depraved? How can we receive it? How can we respond to anything that God chooses to offer us? There is something there. We are made for fellowship with our Creator.
And then, there is, of course, the grace bestowed at our baptism, if we were so blessed as to have parents who saw to it …I came upon my baptismal certificate today. I was, & am appropriately grateful…Without that, & God’s prevenient grace, what might I be? What might we all be?
But I distinguish sharply between total depravity & utter depravity. The former says that we are:crying: all "sheep that have gone astray; the latter would make of us:bigyikes: ravening wolves…

 

[O.S.Luke]

Zooey:

But I distinguish sharply between total depravity & utter depravity. The former says that we are:crying: all "sheep that have gone astray; the latter would make of us:bigyikes: ravening wolves…

You may make that distinguishment… but Wesley did not. In fact, he insisted that he differed “not a hair’s breadth” from the Reformers on this point.

Total didn’t mean utter to the Calvinists, either. Their definition, as well as Wesley’s is similar to yours: to be “totally” depraved implies that unregenerate individuals cannot be any worse off.

Wesley WAS notably different when it came to prevenient (actually, preventing) grace. For that, he often was accused of being Pelagian by other Reformers.

O+

 

[JimO]

Michael, Bill and all others posting on this thread, forgive me for posting off-topic. I didn’t read carefully enough before I posted.

Bill - I am truly sorry for having been offensive or reactionary.

I do have a few on-topic comments, if you would be kind enough to indulge me. Like so many issues where there are contrasts among the various points of view, the degree of man’s depravity is one in which the various points of view can be supported with what I call “biblical sound bites.” However, I believe we have to take all Scripture dealing with an issue as a whole and we have to keep in mind the original audience to whom the text was intended.

Since the depravity of man is closely linked to the “faith” versus “works” issue, I’d like to use this issue as an example of my point. I don’t want to get us off topic again, but the issue is germane. In Romans, Paul clearly states that we are saved by faith, not by our own works. In apparent contrast, James says that faith without works is dead. I can’t tell you how many agnostics who were familiar with Scripture have used this “contradiction” to justify their rejection of the Bible. However, in order to see how these two passages actually compliment one another, one has to consider the audiences. In Romans, Paul was addressing Jewish converts to the faith who still clung to the idea that they had to continue to follow the cleansing rituals in order to “earn” God’s favor. This was a heresy that Paul was trying to address directly. He wasn’t saying that all actions on our part are depraved, but that empty ritualistic adherence to the Law did not make us “clean”. James, on the other hand, was dealing with people who felt that all they had to do was express faith is Christ and then go on living as they had previously. So, he states clearly that faith without works is dead. He is not saying that we must do the works of the Jewish Law. The “works” he is speaking of are the “works” of mercy shown to our fellow man, the very “works” Christ refers to when He says, “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto Me.”

Thus, taken as a whole the Scriptures clearly indicate several spiritual truths that I think we would probably all agree with: 1) We are all saved by grace alone; 2) We cannot earn our salvation; 3) Our righteousness is the righteousness of Christ; 4) True faith must be transformational and that transformation is evident through a change in behavior - or works; 5) We are called to do the “works” that the Lord has planned for us to further His Kingdom.

Where we differ (Protestants and Catholics) is that Protestants believe that we are saved by faith alone and that our behavior does not have any effect on our salvation. Catholics believe that we must cooperate with God’s saving grace and that cooperation comes in the form of actions (or works) that must be part of any genuine faith life. When you drill down, you find the differences are much narrower in scope than most people believe, but they are foundational differences. This brings us back to depravity. If we are utterly depraved, then we are incapable of any righteous act; therefore, any positive change in behavior is an action of God alone and not an action of the will. Christ covers our filth - hence Martin Luther’s “dung hills covered with snow” image. If we are not utterly depraved, then we do have the capacity, through the grace of God, to do righteous acts through an action of our will. This leads to the image of a garment that is cleansed by being washed in the Blood of the Lamb. On the one hand you have filth that is covered, on the other you have filth that is washed away. In the former case, there is nothing to clean because all is filth, in the latter case there is substance that is “good” but has been made filthy through sin.

As a Catholic, I hold to the latter. My greatest concern isn’t that we disagree on this issue, because I don’t see how our disagreement has any impact on our individual salvation. My concern is that many people misunderstand and misrepresent both positions. I know Catholics who do indeed think that God has a big scorecard and they have to “earn” one more check than “X” to make it to heaven. I also know Protestants who are convinced that they are going to heaven because at one time in their life they accepted Jesus as their savior and yet they are living a life of sin that is no different than an unbeliever. People are misled into thinking Catholics believe you earn your way to heaven and Protestants get a “ticket” to heaven and then live however they want. These misperceptions need to be cleared up in order to show a good witness to a truly lost world and to have meaningful discussions like this.

Blessings

 

[MariaG]

I feel as if I am on ignore:crying: . Everyone keeps arguing about the words total depravity, wounded or deprived. I have posted this twice but no one else seems to think this is important. Last time.

Since I was having trouble figuring out the difference between totally depraved and wounded. I thought maybe I did not understand the Catholic position since I found I agreed with what I was reading about totally depraved. I found out that other Catholics would agree with me. According to a fellow Catholic, Catholics agree with the defintion of totally depraved.

posted in CA Library by James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love…

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.

Further

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].

I will ask again, what is the difference in the definition between totally depraved and wounded except the words totally depraved and wounded. Totally depraved to this Catholic mind seems to deny that everything God made was good, and wounded if I am understanding correctly seems to imply to a protestant that man is able to do supernatural good without God.

But I do not believe, and neither does James Akin, that this is correct. We seem to disagree on the words wounded and totally depraved, not the definition.

Is James Akin correct in his explanation of total depravity?

If he is, then we are arguing about words, not defintions.

Comments?

God bless,
Maria

aha!

My computer acting up, I did not see this before.

posted by O.S. Luke
Total didn’t mean utter to the Calvinists, either. Their definition, as well as Wesley’s is similar to yours: to be “totally” depraved implies that unregenerate individuals cannot be any worse off.

Wesley WAS notably different when it came to prevenient (actually, preventing) grace. For that, he often was accused of being Pelagian by other Reformers.

Total does not mean total.

Can we maybe agree that wounded=total depravity? If not why?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Matt16_18]

O.S. Luke:

Total didn’t mean utter to the Calvinists, either. Their definition, as well as Wesley’s is similar to yours: to be “totally” depraved implies that unregenerate individuals cannot be any worse off.

The scriptures don’t support that belief either, in fact, scriptures teach the opposite. The backslid Christian that returns to a life of sinning is in a worse state than he was before he became a Christian.… if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
2Pet. 2:20The damned that are sent to hell for their unrepentant sinning will certainly be in a worse off than they were when they were living on earth.

Obviously it is possible for a man to become every increasingly morally degenerate. One does not have to study the Christian scriptures to know that this is true, one only need observe ordinary people caught up in their alcohol or drug addiction.

The Protestant concept of “total depravity” just doesn’t jive with reality, and that is the problem with it. It forces people to disregard what their common sense and consciences tell them is true in order to cling to a false religion that promises them “eternal security” for merely giving their intellectual assent to a series of (false) theological propositions.

 

[reen12]

Dear JimO,

"Where we differ (Protestants and Catholics) is that Protestants believe that we are saved by faith alone and that our behavior does not have any effect on our salvation. Catholics believe that we must cooperate with God’s saving grace and that cooperation comes in the form of actions (or works) that must be part of any genuine faith life. When you drill down, you find the differences are much narrower in scope than most people believe, but they are foundational differences. This brings us back to depravity. If we are utterly depraved, then we are incapable of any righteous act; therefore, any positive change in behavior is an action of God alone and not an action of the will. Christ covers our filth - hence Martin Luther’s “dung hills covered with snow” image. If we are not utterly depraved, then we do have the capacity, through the grace of God, to do righteous acts through an action of our will. This leads to the image of a garment that is cleansed by being washed in the Blood of the Lamb. On the one hand you have filth that is covered, on the other you have filth that is washed away. In the former case, there is nothing to clean because all is filth, in the latter case there is substance that is “good” but has been made filthy through sin.

As a Catholic, I hold to the latter. My greatest concern isn’t that we disagree on this issue, because I don’t see how our disagreement has any impact on our individual salvation. My concern is that many people misunderstand and misrepresent both positions. I know Catholics who do indeed think that God has a big scorecard and they have to “earn” one more check than “X” to make it to heaven. I also know Protestants who are convinced that they are going to heaven because at one time in their life they accepted Jesus as their savior and yet they are living a life of sin that is no different than an unbeliever. People are misled into thinking Catholics believe you earn your way to heaven and Protestants get a “ticket” to heaven and then live however they want. These misperceptions need to be cleared up in order to show a good witness to a truly lost world and to have meaningful discussions like this." quote, JimO

That is the clearest presentation on the subject
that I have ever had the pleasure to read.
May I make one observation?

I’ve read a lot on Orthodox Judaism, including
tales of the Hassidic masters.
What I learned was, that fulfilling a mitzva -
what Paul would have referred to as* fulfilling*
*the Law *- is not at all understood in that way
in Judaism.
Fulfilling a mitzva is considered a priviledge-
as both a way to obey God and also to give
Him honor and glory.
Hence the saying: Thank You for making me
a man…
not because to be a male is superior to being
a woman, but because the Mosaic Law
contains more mitzvoth that pertain to men,
therefore giving men a greater opportunity to
honor God by fulfilling more mizvoth.

One of the Hassidic tales contains the account
of a holy tzaddik, weeping on his deathbed.
His disciples are stunned. If *he *hadn’t fulfilled
the Law, then who did? They ask him *why *he
is weeping. His reply?

Because in the world to come he will not have
the joy of performing the mitzvoth and thereby
honoring G-d in that way.

I think that the Law, as presented by Paul
in his letters, is, in some critical sense, misunderstood
by Christians in the 21st century.

Just a thought. Thanks again for your fine post,

reen12
aka Zusia

 

[Matt16_18]

MariaG:

I will ask again, what is the difference in the definition between totally depraved and wounded except the words totally depraved and wounded.

Can we maybe agree that wounded=total depravity? If not why?

I would say that a Catholic cannot accept that “wounded=total depravity”, because that implicitly denies the distinction that the Catholic Church makes between the wounds caused by venial sins and the wounds caused by motal sins.

The real argument isn’t about the difference between using the words “depraved” or “wounded”. It is about the use of the word “totally”. No Catholic can believe that all non-Christians are totally depraved (i.e. totally wounded). Sin is what wounds us, and the only sins that totally wound us are the sins that cause mortal wounds (mortal sins).

The Catholic Church rejects the common Protestant belief that all non-Christians are going to be eternally damned. The only people that are going to be damned are those that die in a state of mortal sin, and not every person that dies as a non-Christian is necessarily in a state of mortal sin.It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863

 

[MariaG]

Implicitly denies. How so? According to Akin as well as some of our Protestant brothers and sisters. Total does not mean utter according to the Calvinists.

What explicitly is different. Not what connotations does it bring to your mind, implicitly, but where explicitly does Total depravity contradict the Catholic view? May be it is not equal wounded? But where does it contradict?

What about James Akin’s view do you disagree?

God Bless,

Maria

 

[Matt16_18]

MariaG:

Implicitly denies. How so?

Most fundamentalist Protestants and Calvinists deny the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin. Because of that denial, they believe that God sees every sin as equally reprehensible, and they are implicitily teaching that God makes no distinction between spitting on the sidewalk and raping an infant. This is yet another way in which bad theology conflicts with what normal people believe about justice, i.e. that unless the punishment fits the crime, there is no justice.

Total does not mean total.

This is an irrational statement. Why should a reasonable human being accept it under any circumstance? If total doesn’t mean total, then why don’t the Calvinists change the way that they present their theology?

What about James Akin’s view do you disagree?

“Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love.”What Calvinist believes that they have free will? None of the Calvinists that I have ever had contact with. They all seem to think that they are members of the elect, and because of that, they have eternal security because they are incapble of committing mortal sin.

 

[Zooey]

MariaG:

I feel as if I am on ignore:crying: . Everyone keeps arguing about the words total depravity, wounded or deprived. I have posted this twice but no one else seems to think this is important. Last time.
Since I was having trouble figuring out the difference between totally depraved and wounded. I thought maybe I did not understand the Catholic position since I found I agreed with what I was reading about totally depraved. I found out that other Catholics would agree with me. According to a fellow Catholic, Catholics agree with the defintion of totally depraved.
Further
I will ask again, what is the difference in the definition between totally depraved and wounded except the words totally depraved and wounded. Totally depraved to this Catholic mind seems to deny that everything God made was good, and wounded if I am understanding correctly seems to imply to a protestant that man is able to do supernatural good without God.
But I do not believe, and neither does James Akin, that this is correct. We seem to disagree on the words wounded and totally depraved, not the definition. Is James Akin correct in his explanation of total depravity? If he is, then we are arguing about words, not defintions. . Comments? God bless,Maria…
Total does not mean total.
Can we maybe agree that wounded=total depravity? If not why?

Maria, I promise not to ignore you! I have been reading your posts, but the Akins quote is refusing to load! But based on your quote from same, I think that we are closer than we seem to agreement.(I freely confess to arguing over the meaning of words; what words mean is important…I once again find myself thinking of “England & the United States: two countries separated by a common language…”.)
At the risk of starting things up again, I will once again say that ‘totally’ & ‘utterly’ depraved are 2 different things.‘Totally’= everybody on earth has the same problem: sin. ‘Utterly’= we are all so sinful that there is nothing that can respond to God. (The sound that you hear is both Methodists & Calvinists throwing large heavy objects at me…Ignore it; I do!) From the part of the Akins quote that you posted, I *almost *agree with you. The part about “special grace [from God]”, & the quote from Aquinas are especially apropos to the question at hand. They are the prevenient grace of Mr Wesley…(though OSL will now :nope: & :tsktsk: disagree…sigh).
PS:I have many, many family members in the Calvinist fold…Wouldn’t you like to come to the next family reunion? Bring a dish to pass & your own football helmet & other protective gear.

 

[Zooey]

JimO:

My concern is that many people misunderstand and misrepresent both positions. I know Catholics who do indeed think that God has a big scorecard and they have to “earn” one more check than “X” to make it to heaven. I also know Protestants who are convinced that they are going to heaven because at one time in their life they accepted Jesus as their savior and yet they are living a life of sin that is no different than an unbeliever. People are misled into thinking Catholics believe you earn your way to heaven and Protestants get a “ticket” to heaven and then live however they want. These misperceptions need to be cleared up in order to show a good witness to a truly lost world and to have meaningful discussions like this.
Blessings

This whole post is excellent. I highlighted the reason I keep at it, too!
I would suggest that, however, the above mentioned Catholics & Protestants are not representative of the truly devout in either camp…
These are the people who give ammunition to atheists & agnostics. We need to pray for them…(Yes, the Christians! Though for unbelievers, too, of course!!)

 

[MariaG]

From James Akin

“Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love.”

What Calvinist believes that they have free will? None of the Calvinists that I have ever had contact with. .

Calvinists would say they do not have free will and only God can save them with special grace. Catholics believe that it has been so damaged we are unable to help ourselves without special grace from God.

The difference from my imperfect understanding of total depravity seems to be whether or not the free will is ever there or is simply injured and in need of restoration which can only come from God.

Whether that is called no free will or injured free will, the result is the same, we can do nothing without special grace from God. Once again, it appears to me to be a fight of what to call something, no free will or injured free will. But neither condition can be changed without special grace from God.

They all seem to think that they are members of the elect, and because of that, they have eternal security because they are incapble of committing mortal sin

Different issue than the definition of totally depraved.

[QUOTEThis is an irrational statement. Why should a reasonable human being accept it under any circumstance? If total doesn’t mean total, then why don’t the Calvinists change the way that they present their theology?

[/QUOTE]

Also a different question. In fact other protestants like Lorraine Bottner do not agree with the words total depravity and would like to use total inability. Actually very similar to the whole “faith alone” discussions. All the protestant Churches I went to said faith alone, but taught faith without works.

Most fundamentalist Protestants and Calvinists deny the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin. Because of that denial, they believe that God sees every sin as equally reprehensible, and they are implicitily teaching that God makes no distinction between spitting on the sidewalk and raping an infant. This is yet another way in which bad theology conflicts with what normal people believe about justice, i.e. that unless the punishment fits the crime, there is no justice.

But once again, a different issue on the definition of total depravity. The defintion, as explained by James Akin*,* of total depravity is not contradictory to Catholic theology.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Zooey]

:yup: I have finally been able to get the James Akin article to load. It is excellent…I found myself nodding my head in agreement at a number of points, & even when I disagreed, I saw where he was coming from in his thinking.
OK, the question seems to be as Maria states: Is the will injured, or does it simply not exist? I would say that it is injured…greatly injured, to be sure, but :nope: not among the missing.
Now, there seems to be a need to (I’m sorry!! ) define terms again…Is the Calvinist position that there is any free will at all? And, if there is a will, is there any sense in which it is free?? Both Catholic teaching (per Akin) & Methodist teaching (per, I suppose, me) say that there is such a will. I would hope to get a definition of “will”, therefore, from those who (it seems to me) deny its existence.
And, in passing,(just to stir the brew), if there is no free will, how is it possible for “poor ornery people like you & like I” to be judged guilty by God for not using it???
I am putting this question, as one Methodist pastor famously put it, “in a mental box, awaiting further light”…
God bless.

 

[MariaG]

Defining terms is good. But getting caught up on the word is not.

As for if there is no free will, I believe that enters into the Calvinist theology of the elect. God is the one that chooses.

I think this is the difference.

Both Catholics and Calvinist’s as well as other protestants believe we can do no supernatural good without special grace from God. The difference from here is that Catholics (and some protestants?) believe the special grace is made available to all, and we reject or accept the gift of grace.

The Calvinist point would be that God only makes available grace to the elect.(?) No one rejects the grace because God is the one that does the choosing.

But in both definitions, Man can do nothing without special grace from God. Once we move past the very basic definition, there are disagreements, (free will/no will). But even if the point of this thread is to move into free will/no will, defining what total depravity is and isn’t needs to stand alone. Even Bottner (a Protestant with a very bad understanding of Catholicism) thinks it should be more of a total *inability *instead of total depravity.

posted by O.S. Luke
Total didn’t mean utter to the Calvinists, either. Their definition, as well as Wesley’s is similar to yours: to be “totally” depraved implies that unregenerate individuals cannot be any worse off.

Wesley WAS notably different when it came to prevenient (actually, preventing) grace. For that, he often was accused of being Pelagian by other Reformers.

What is Pelagian? How is Wesley different from other reformers.

God Bless,
Maria