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

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant:

My friends,
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.

Dear Friends,
My Mom passed away Saturday morning at 9 AM, and with so much going on I don’t think I can do justice to much of anything right now. I will be back to posting pretty much as mormal by the end of next week (Pentecost Sunday). Mom did not suffer and God answered our prayers. They say her heart just maxed out Friday night and refused to slow down. I had to think of the passages of the NT that speak of us running our race…It sounds like my sainted Mom decided to finish strong and I know that she is with Our Lord. I think she must’ve run all the way into His arms.

Thank you all for your prayers and I beg more that all her 3 sons will be able to function with charity for all in this confusing and busy time full of stresses. The funeral is at 11:30 CDT on Thursday 4/12. If you can join us in prayer at that time please do.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[JohnPaul0]

Church Militant:

Dear Friends,
My Mom passed away Saturday morning at 9 AM, and with so much going on I don’t think I can do justice to much of anything right now. ,

My sympathy to you. I can’t help but feel especially bad for you with today being Mother’s Day.

God have mercy on you all.

 

[reen12]

Dear Michael,

Please accept my deep sympathy on the passing
of your dear mother.
Four sons. How blest she was, and now, blessed
for eternity, safe in the arms of Jesus.
I have been praying for you and your family, and
will be sure to join your family in prayer,
Thursday morning, 10:30 our time.
God be with you and comfort you,
Maureen

 

[JimO]

Church Militant:

Dear Friends,
My Mom passed away Saturday morning at 9 AM…
Pax vobiscum,

Michael,

My prayers are with you and your family.

Jim

 

[JimO]

reen12:

Dear JimO,
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.

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

Reen,

You make an excellant point! I think much of our misunderstanding of Scripture is the result of not understanding the cultural and spiritual climates at the times that the Scriptures were written. This is part of putting Scripture “in context.”

 

[JohnRef]

I do not beleive in the total depravity of man and I don’t believe the Bible implies that. Any time there appears to be a conflict between passages of the Bible I believe that it is our misunderstanding of the Bible that is the problem, not the Bible per se. I think that is something that St. Augustine said?

---

What about:

None is righteous, no not one;
No one understands, no one seeks God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless.
No one does good, not even one.
Their throat is an open grave,
They use their tongues to deceive,
The venom of asps is under their lips.
Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood,
In their paths are ruin and misery,
And the way of peace they have now known."
There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Rom. 3:10-18, quoting Pss. 14:1, 53:1-3, 5:9, 104:3, 10:7 (LXX), Pro, 1:16, Is. 59:7, Ps. 36:1.

When the liberals scolded Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, I countered, “Can you find two other words in the English language that more accurately depict the Soviet Union?”

Similarly, can “total depravity” be improved on, per Rom. 3:10-18?

 

[JimO]

JohnRef:

IWhat about…
Rom. 3:10-18, quoting Pss. 14:1, 53:1-3, 5:9, 104:3, 10:7 (LXX), Pro, 1:16, Is. 59:7, Ps. 36:1.

Similarly, can “total depravity” be improved on, per Rom. 3:10-18?

“In spite of this, your hard and impenitent heart is storing up retribution for that day of wrath when the just judgement of God will be revealed, when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and anguish will come upon every man who has done evil, the Jew first, then the Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who has done good, likewise the Jew first, then the Greek” Rom. 2:5-10

If we are “totally” depraved, then how could we be granted eternal life by “doing” good?

We could go back and forth all day exchanging what I call Scripture “sound bites”. One has to take the Scripture as a whole.

 

[Contarini]

sonseeker:

1. How is it known that the Genesis account is symbolic?

It seems extremely probable, on the basis of the style and genre of writing and the subjects being described. It’s not a truth of faith–if you want to take it literally, it’s OK to do so. But the burden of proof is on you to show (in the teeth of what it looks like to the rest of us) that the text must be taken literally in every respect.

sonseeker:

1. If God Himself created the visible world, could he not do it in six days?

Of course.

sonseeker:

1. If He could, why not say that the Genesis account of a six day creation is true?

No one said it wasn’t true.

sonseeker:

1. Why symbolic?

Because the genre of writing is that of myth.

sonseeker:

1. How is it known that the Genesis account is symbolic?

It isn’t known for certain. But it looks symbolic, most scholars think it’s symbolic, and the Spirit has not guided the Church as a whole to reject this view as heretical.

sonseeker:

If the Genesis account is symbolic, several problems arise: 1) on what day did the account of Genesis stop being symbolic and become real?

Symbolic and real are not mutually opposed. The Catholic Church is not saying that the story doesn’t refer to real events, simply that it does so in a symbolic manner. I think this is what is tripping you up.

sonseeker:

1. is the account of Adam and Eve also symbolic?

Yes. Bearing in mind that it does refer to real events. But certainly the story is symbolic (the rib, the trees, the serpent are symbols). Tell me this: if Gen. 3 is purely literal, then do you reject the traditional view that the serpent was Satan? If you think the serpent was Satan, then why? The text does not literally say any such thing. Interpreting the serpent as Satan is a symbolic interpretation.

sonseeker:

1. if the Scripture starts out symbolically, how will I ever be able to understand it?

Perhaps you could free yourself from the modern programming that tells you that symbolism is unintelligible or meaningless?

sonseeker:

1. is God deceptive?

No. But he communicates through hints and myths and symbols more often than through straightforward statements. If you think otherwise, you live in a different universe than I do.

sonseeker:

1. why doesn’t He just tell the truth about how long it took?

Because the purpose of the Genesis story is not to tell us how long it took. You’re demanding that the story have a purpose that fits your very modern needs. Why would you assume that that was God’s purpose in inspiring this story?

sonseeker:

If we cannot believe God from the beginning, can we believe Him at all? When can we believe Him?

We won’t get anywhere as long as you put it in those terms, because I don’t believe that the issue is “believing” God. I believe as true everything that God has revealed in Scripture. If you proceed on the assumption that I don’t (or that Catholics who adhere to the view held in the Catechism don’t), we aren’t going to have a very fruitful discussion.

As for when the account stops being symbolic–well, all of Scripture has a symbolic aspect. And with C. S. Lewis, I believe that the later we get in salvation history, the more historical the account is. But I myself would say that there’s a clear shift in genre after chap. 11. The story of Abraham has a historical setting that the earlier stories don’t have.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Ignatius]

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.

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.

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

Total depravity = wounded Yes? or No?

You people just need to learn to use a dictionary.

Main Entry: 1to·tal [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?total001.wav=total’))
Pronunciation: 'tO-t&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin *totalis, *from Latin *totus *whole, entire
ABSOLUTE**, **UTTER

Main Entry: de·praved [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?deprav01.wav=deprave’))
Pronunciation: di-‘prAv
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French *depraver, *from Latin *depravare *to pervert, from *de- + pravus *crooked, bad
Main Entry: de·praved [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?deprav05.wav=depraved’))
Pronunciation: di-'prAvd
Function: adjective
: marked by corruption or evil; especially : PERVERTED

I believe what you are really doing is adhering to these false, man-made doctrines which did not exist until the 16th century. Then, when you are called on them, disingenuously make up a new definition to suite the circumstances. This is completely dishonest and is a source of confusion. You know who the author of confusion is? So you see who the author of these false, man made doctrines is. It’s not Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Spirit open your eyes to see the falsehood of these doctrines. Ephphatha!

 

[sonseeker]

the burden of proof is on you to show…that the text must be taken literally in every respect.

You have appealed to the RCC, and to C.S. Lewis for support. I will appeal to Moses, Ezra, Jesus, Luke, and Paul. Clearly, the influence of modernism is yours. Your appeal is Barthian in its thinking, ie., the Genesis account is a “teaching model.”

Let’s begin with genealogies: Gen 5:1ff, Seth is also corroborated by Gen 4:25; genealogy in 1 Chron. 1:1; Luke’s genealogy of Jesus in Lk 3, especially v 38. All of those genealogies treat Adam as an historical figure, not a symbol, or a myth.

Furthermore, Jesus when questioned by the Pharisees about divorce in Mt. 19:4-6; Mk 10:6-8, referred to statements made in Gen 1:27; and 2:24 concerning the institution of marriage; Jesus’ appeal to the beginning of things recorded in Genesis would have no relevance to the situation in His day, or any other day, if the man and woman were mere symbols, and myth. His words assume that Adam and Eve were actual, or real historical persons.

Paul, too, accepts Adam and Eve as historical persons, not symbols, or myths in 1 Tim 2:13ff. Again, Paul accepts the temporal sequence as historical succession. Paul states, “the woman was deceived,” this squares with the recording of events in Gen 3:13. She was deceived by the serpent, Satan. Again, Paul accepts the account as actual, not symbolic, or mythic.

In 1 Cor 15:21-22, Paul contrasts two men: one through whom death came into the world, and another through whom the resurrection has come. V22 specifies that the first man was Adam, and the second man was Christ. Paul places Adam alongside the historical Jesus, the parallel would be foolish if Adam were only a symbol, or myth. In fact, if the Genesis account is symbolic, or mythic, Paul could just as easily said: “As in Pandora all men die, so in Christ all men are made alive.

Paul tells of sin’s entrance into the world “through one man,” Adam (Rom 5:12ff). In 1 Cor 15, Paul confirms believes the Genesis account of Adam: “the first man Adam became…” v 45; He was ”from the earth”, earthy, v 47.

And much more (see also Job 31:33; Jos 6:7; Jude 14). There are some serious problems that arise from a symbolic, or mythic interpretation of Genesis. You need to think about a “non-historic,” “symbolic,” “mythic” Adam and the nature of man.

Symbolic and real are not mutually opposed…I think this is what is tripping you up.

Symbolic, mythic, are opposed to reality, and if I am “tripped up,” then so were Jesus, and Paul, Luke, Moses, Ezra, Job, Hosea, and Jude (all of whom treat Adam and the Genesis account as historical).

…I believe that the later we get in salvation history, the more historical the account is…I myself would say that there’s a clear shift in genre after chap. 11. The story of Abraham has a historical setting that the earlier stories don’t have.

In light of what I have shown you, will you assume the burden of proof for your assertion that historical settings begin with Abraham, and then become more historical the nearer they get to the cross?

You illustrate well the concern that I voiced in my original post.

Grace,

Bill

 

[Ignatius]

sonseeker:

Clearly, the influence of modernism is yours.

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.

Let’s begin with genealogies: Gen 5:1ff, Seth is also corroborated by Gen 4:25; genealogy in 1 Chron. 1:1; Luke’s genealogy of Jesus in Lk 3, especially v 38. All of those genealogies treat Adam as an historical figure, not a symbol, or a myth.

Boy, There is no logic to your post. This thread is about your doctrine that says man is totally depraved.

Let’s look at what that means.

Main Entry: 1to·tal
Pronunciation: 'tO-t&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin *totalis, *from Latin *totus *whole, entire
ABSOLUTE**, **UTTER

Main Entry: de·praved
Pronunciation: di-'prAv
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French *depraver, *from Latin *depravare *to pervert, from *de- + pravus *crooked, bad
Main Entry: de·praved m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: di-'prAvd
Function: adjective
: marked by corruption or evil; especially : PERVERTED

What you are really doing is adhering to these false, man-made doctrines which did not exist until the 16th century. Then, when you are called on them, you disingenuously make up a new definition to suite the circumstances. This is completely dishonest and is a source of confusion. You know who the author of confusion is? So you see who the author of these false, man made doctrines is. It’s not Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Spirit open your eyes to see the falsehood of these doctrines. Ephphatha!

 

[sonseeker]

Ignatius:

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.

Boy, There is no logic to your post. This thread is about your doctrine that says man is totally depraved.

What you are really doing is adhering to these false, man-made doctrines which did not exist until the 16th century. Then, when you are called on them, you disingenuously make up a new definition to suite the circumstances. This is completely dishonest and is a source of confusion. You know who the author of confusion is? So you see who the author of these false, man made doctrines is. It’s not Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Spirit open your eyes to see the falsehood of these doctrines. Ephphatha!

Ignatius,

Here is Christ, teaching from a parable, about total depravity:

Matthew 12:33-37 (NASB95)
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35 “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Here is the problem with your logic

1 Corinthians 1:21 (NASB95)
21 *For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. *

You can know God neither through your logic, nor through early church fathers, but only through His word. (If He allows you to understand.)

Here is the problem you are having understanding it:

1 Corinthians 2:14-18 (NASB95)
14 *But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. *
15 *But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. *
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

You do not understand, because you cannot understand. You are still totally depraved.

Bill

 

[JimO]

sonseeker:

37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Now that is a very interesting verse

sonseeker:

You do not understand, because you cannot understand. You are still totally depraved.

I can see that your tone hasn’t changed and even though I called you on it and then offerred an “olive branch” in several posts following a similar personal attack on me, you have not even acknowledged them and you have not responded to the points that I made.

 

[BlackKnight]

sonseeker:

Ignatius,

Here is Christ, teaching from a parable, about total depravity:

Matthew 12:33-37 (NASB95)
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35 “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
36 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Here is the problem with your logic

1 Corinthians 1:21 (NASB95)
21 *For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. *

You can know God neither through your logic, nor through early church fathers, but only through His word. (If He allows you to understand.)

Here is the problem you are having understanding it:

1 Corinthians 2:14-18 (NASB95)
14 *But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. *
15 *But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. *
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

You do not understand, because you cannot understand. You are still totally depraved.

Bill

Gentlemen,
In reading through this thread I have noticed that the IP, my friend CM has asked that we not get all hung up in our emotions as we post and answer each other. Please let’s not get into things like Ignatius and Sonseeker have gotten drawn into. This sort of scriptural and spiritual broadside blasts that really does nothing but hype out everyone’s emotions and I don’t believe either of you guys intended to insult the other, am I right?

I don’t think that anyone here is so "depraved’ and “intellectually darkened” that they cannot grasp a spiritual truth if a good case is made for it and (most importantly) the Holy Spirit convicts their heart. (Unless maybe that is what total depravity means and that we cannot grasp the truths of our salvation , which seems odd to me because that would then imply that even the apostles were to darkened to get a grip… )

Anyway, I think that we are also talking about the difference in the respective world views of those who hold these divergent ideas are we not?

 

[Church_Militant]

Well said, BK and thank you.
I’m sorry that I don’t have time today to enter this discussion in depth, but I do enjoin you all and sundry to maintain the very soul of charity in our discussions here. I refuse to believe that either Ignatius, JimO, or Sonseeker in any way intend personal insults to each other in these posts, though I can see that some heat seems to be developing, & as I said before it may be time to walk away from the keyboard, go get a Coke (Yeah, I’m Southern… ) and then come back and answer in simple rationality…and not heated emotion.

Friday or Saturday I will be back in here to sort of help this discussion along and I look forward sharing with you all then. Meanwhile, keep me in your prayers as Mom’s funeral is tomorrow and we are hip deep in relatives and their needs and wants.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Zooey]

BlackKnight:

Gentlemen,
I don’t think that anyone here is so "depraved’ and “intellectually darkened” that they cannot grasp a spiritual truth if a good case is made for it and (most importantly) the Holy Spirit convicts their heart. (Unless maybe that is what total depravity means and that we cannot grasp the truths of our salvation , which seems odd to me because that would then imply that even the apostles were to darkened to get a grip… )
QUOTE]
That is what it seems to mean (at least to some of the people, at least some of the time), which is precisely why I don’t believe in it. It is irrational. It throws all of us a million parsecs away from even comprehending that there is a Saviour, much less that we need saving,

 

[reen12]

Dear Michael,

My husband and I are praying for you, your brothers
and family this morning.

Maureen
[My brother’s name is Michael ]

 

[Ignatius]

sonseeker:

Ignatius,

Here is Christ, teaching from a parable, about total depravity:

You do not understand, because you cannot understand. You are still totally depraved.

Bill

Sorry to have to repeat myself. You don’t understand the meaning of totally depraived. You still need to get a dictionary.

Let’s look at what that means.

Total means Absolute, utter
Depraived means perverted

Please, sonseeker, stop adhering to these false, man-made doctrines. Check it out, they did not even exist until the 16th century.

They are completely dishonest and are a source of confusion. You know who the author of confusion is don’t you? So you see who the author of these false, man made doctrines is.

Please, open your eyes and come to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth which Jesus Christ founded.

Again I pray, may the Holy Spirit cause the scales to fall from your eyes and make you to see the falsehood of these doctrines. Ephphatha!

Your brother in Christ

 

[sonseeker]

Ignatius:

Sorry to have to repeat myself. You don’t understand the meaning of totally depraived. You still need to get a dictionary.

Let’s look at what that means.

Total means Absolute, utter
Depraived means perverted

Please, sonseeker, stop adhering to these false, man-made doctrines. Check it out, they did not even exist until the 16th century.

They are completely dishonest and are a source of confusion. You know who the author of confusion is don’t you? So you see who the author of these false, man made doctrines is.

Please, open your eyes and come to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth which Jesus Christ founded.

Again I pray, may the Holy Spirit cause the scales to fall from your eyes and make you to see the falsehood of these doctrines. Ephphatha!

Your brother in Christ

You are right. I surrender.

Bill

 

[Church_Militant]

reen12:

Dear Michael,

My husband and I are praying for you, your brothers
and family this morning.

Maureen
[My brother’s name is Michael ]

Thank you Reen!
All the prayers really did help. It turned into a really blessed time. I’ll remember your brother Michael next time I pray the Chaplet of St. Michael. (and you of course)
Pax tecum,