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

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

Man is totally and utterly corrupted by sin; man lives in a state of sin (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 15:4; Ps 14:3; Mt 7:11; 12:34; Lk 11:13; Rom 3:10ff)

I (and the Catholic Church) agree that the “unregenerate” lives in a state of sin. That is not even up for debate. But as for being “totally and utterly corrupted by sin”, I cannot agree, for such a person couldn’t respond to the gift of grace from the Lord. Without attempting to analyze every passage, let’s just look at the first one:
(Gen 6:5) “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

Taking this apart from the rest of the chapter, one could arrive at your conclusion. However, we have to keep reading:
(Gen 6:6-7) And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
Now one can’t take your interpretation of Gen 6:5 unless one assumes that either Noah was not a human being, or that Noah was righteous and walking with the Lord at the same time that his heart was evil continually.

What Scripture tells us in this chapter is that at this point in human history, the entire world had turned away from God except for one man. Noah. He had responded to the grace the Lord sent him. Noah was in fact, not totally and utterly corrupted, for he had responded to the free gift of grace given to him by the Lord.

This goes a little toward the* literalist* vs. literal (as opposed to symbolic vs. literal) interpretation of Scripture, and I think you’re taking the literalist view in this instance. For example, if I write that it’s “raining cats and dogs” outside, a *literalist *would say cats and dogs are actually falling from the sky, while the literal interpretation would understand that it’s raining heavily outside.

I want to also touch on one other of your quotes:
(Ps 14:3) They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
Again, I’d say your taking the literalist view. For all one has to do is look at the very first chapter of Psalms to see the problem with this viewpoint. Scripture always presents two sides to humanity. The wicked along with the good -
(Ps 1:1-6) Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

When I used Acts 4:12 and 17:30, I am saying that whoever does not repent, and is not saved by Christ is being disobedient to God’s command, and is therefore, always and only sinful.

I really don’t have a problem with this, I just wouldn’t say it in the same way. I would say these folks are in a state of original sin, have not been washed in the Blood of the Lamb, and therefore won’t be saved. You seem to agree that there is some constraint to their evil - either externally as Divine intervention or Divinely “allowed” societal laws, or internally as a part of the natural law ingrained on and remaining in man’s human nature as conscience. I agree that heeding such constraints for reasons other that love of God won’t do 'em any good (eternally speaking), but the fact that they are there, especially the internal conscience you admit to, demonstrates by your own words that man is not “totally depraved” in the sense that he is totally evil. For that true law of God inscribed in man’s heart is a part of his human nature.

As for the person who has never been physically presented with the Gospel of the Lord, I’ll leave it alone for now except to say that I believe God will deal with these folks justly, I’m sure He has a way of getting a “yes” or a “no” out of 'em in ways known to Him alone, He will read their hearts, and if they are saved they are saved by none other than Our Lord Jesus Christ.

You articulated a story of an unbeliever who fed a starving stranger, although this is a kind act, it is not a righteous act before God (Is 64:6; Pro 30:12), as all righteous acts must be done through Christ and in His name; therefore, even if a believer performs a righteous act it is not his own, but rather Christ’s/God’s act (Is 26:12; Jn 15:4-5; 1 Cor 10:31; Col 3:17; Php 1:11; 2:13. The kind acts done by unbelievers are not done with the motive of bringing glory to God, as they do not know God. The unbeliever performing a kind act is still always and only sinful.

Sorry, but I’m still not going to disagree with you here. Though I would say the unbeliever performing a kind act is still in the state of sin, this particular act itself is not sinful. Something still uncorrupted in this man’s nature has moved him to show compassion on a stranger. But since it isn’t done out of love for God, it is as you might say (and I’d agree), an “empty work”, not a righteous act before God, and of course the act in and of itself won’t save him.

Though righteous works performed by the believer are rewarded by God, scripture is clear that works are, in themselves, not due any special recognition by God, as they are simply something that the believer ought to do (Lk 17:7-10).

Again, no disagreement here. The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense - mere man cannot:
(CCC 2007)With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
The most merit humans can have is when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:6-10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit:
(CCC 2008) The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

I made mention of men being restrained from being “completely evil.” Let me restate it more clearly. God’s restraint of sin is an extension of common grace, and it functions through at least four channels…So evil is not always fully expressed by men…

Okay, we are agreed that God can and usually does constrain men externally from being fully evil, no problem. But let’s look onto the role of conscience - as this is I think key in the two of us coming to an acknowledge agreement of what is meant by “Total Depravity”:

As far as the conscience, this too restrains men, in that they know right from wrong instinctively. However, that knowledge condemns them; it does not save them, as it is impossible to be saved by keeping the law in any form.

Well, I’d say a couple of things here. A man’s conscience, though a free gift of God is truly a part of man, built into man’s nature, it is written in the heart of man. Man knows it, as you said, “instinctively”. That man can know certain truths of God instinctively and can struggle to cooperate with it, demonstrates man is not totally depraved. For if man was totally depraved, he would not even attempt to cooperate with his conscience.

And if you were to say that man doesn’t even try to cooperate with his conscience apart from God’s grace, I still wouldn’t disagree with you. It does show that God’s grace is involved in or on all of us…that’s merely due to us being made unto His image. That we have a conscience and that we struggle, however unsuccessfully, to cooperate with it, shows that we have not been totally abandoned or depraved - something of God’s image still remains in us.

Finally (and this may a bit off topic), while I’d of course agree that it is impossible for man to keep the law perfectly and thus save himself, I would say that it is not right to automatically condemn everyone who hasn’t been physically presented with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How this person approaches the law “written on their hearts” might be crucial, for if he’s approaching them through the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, though he doesn’t know Our Lord by name, God may be working with this person in a way known to Him alone. As Scripture says, “God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

(Romans 2:14-16) “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

In summary, Scripture articulates a low view of man:

1. Every thought and intent of his heart is evil continually (Gen 6:5; 8:21)
2. Though men are pure in their own eyes, they are filthy (Pro 30:12; Is 64:6)
3. Though evil men appear good, it is by the H.S.’s restraint (Gen 31:7; Job 1:12; 2:6 etc)
4. Righteous acts, though seemingly performed by men, are performed by God (Is 26:12 etc see above para 3)

.

Amen to all that brother, apart from God we are nothing. Willfully turning from God we are evil, sinful, and yes “filthy”. But the Good News is that this is not all that Scripture has to say of man. We won’t truly know our potential “worth” unless we see ourselves in the light of Jesus Christ, or perhaps better said…until we see Jesus Christ in us
(Job 7:17-18) What is man, that thou dost make so much of him, and that thou dost set thy mind upon him, dost visit him every morning, and test him every moment?

(Psalm 8:4-5) what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.

(John 3:16-17) For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

(Hebrews 6:5-8, 11-12) For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, “What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him? Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.”
… For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I will proclaim thy name to my brethren,
in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.”
It is, as Pope John Paul II so eloquently stated:
"The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly-and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being-he must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter into him with all his own self, he must “appropriate” and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself. If this profound process takes place within him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also of deep wonder at himself. How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he “gained so great a Redeemer”, and if God "gave his only Son "in order that man “should not perish but have eternal life”
(Redemptor hominis, Chapter 10, paragraph 1)
Peace in Christ!

DustinsDad

 

[MariaG]

Hi Bill,

posted by sonseeker #107
Akin then says something that I find truly amazing:

“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.”

Think, for moment; what is he saying?

Total depravity is total depravity. The term a Catholic would use is “wounded;” as soon as you change it to “wounded,” it is no longer “total depravity.” Don’t words mean anything? They do. Akin is not being honest here. I don’t think that many of the people who have referred me to this article are thinking about what they are reading. That sentence by Akin is trickery, as far as I’m concerned. No right-thinking Catholic would agree with it; your critical thinking switch is in the “off” position. How is it that you agree with that statement? If I were Catholic, I would not agree with Akin’s statement!

How is Akin resorting to trickery? I originally found the article because I thought I needed to understand the Catholic position better. I was reading your words and explanation of man’s state before regeneration and couldn’t see where it differed from the Catholic position except for the words wounded and total depravity. He even quotes Calvinists who use different words to describe Total Depravity.

From Tiptoe through Tulip
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.”]

It would appear that even Calvinists would like a different term than total depravity.

Before you thanked me for posting Sproul and Boettner, (no friend of Catholic Christians). I went back to look.

posted by sonseeker
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.

Unless you are referring to something else, Sproul does not say total corruption. He says radical corruption. Was there a different quote you were referring to or did you misread or type?

But frankly, I don’t mind if you don’t respond to this, mostly I just wanted to bump this back up to the top to see your response to Dustin’s Dad

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sonseeker]

DustinsDad:

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord…Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Noah’s finding favor with God is because of God. We are saved by grace through faith. Salvation is from God, and it is always by grace through faith (Rom 1:17; Eph 2:8). Neither Noah, nor anyone else possesses an inherent righteousness.

DustinsDad:

I want to also touch on one other of your quotes:

(Ps 14:3) They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Again, I’d say your taking the literalist view.

Then Paul, too, has a literalist view as he restates this and more in (Rom 3:10ff).

DustinsDad:

As for the person who has never been physically presented with the Gospel of the Lord, I’ll leave it alone for now except to say that I believe God will deal with these folks justly, I’m sure He has a way of getting a “yes” or a “no” out of 'em in ways known to Him alone, He will read their hearts, and if they are saved they are saved by none other than Our Lord Jesus Christ.

When God deals justly with anyone, he is condemned. It is only by His mercy that we are saved. Man receives one of two things from God, Justice, or Mercy.

(CCC 2007)With regard to God**, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man**. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

The most merit humans can have is when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:6-10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit:

(CCC 2008) The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

Which is it? Does man merit, or not? I say no (Rom 4:4). You say yes, and no.

DustinsDad:

Well, I’d say a couple of things here. A man’s conscience, though a free gift of God is truly a part of man, built into man’s nature, it is written in the heart of man

. Man knows it, as you said, “instinctively”. That man can know certain truths of God instinctively and can struggle to cooperate with it, demonstrates man is not totally depraved. For if man was totally depraved, he would not even attempt to cooperate with his conscience.Now we are moving toward election/predestination. Man cannot move toward God, therefore he is totally depraved. The initial move is always from God to Man (Gen 3:8-9).

DustinsDad:

Finally (and this may a bit off topic), while I’d of course agree that it is impossible for man to keep the law perfectly and thus save himself, I would say that it is not right to automatically condemn everyone who hasn’t been physically presented with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How this person approaches the law “written on their hearts” might be crucial, for if he’s approaching them through the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, though he doesn’t know Our Lord by name, God may be working with this person in a way known to Him alone. As Scripture says, “God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

If you don’t believe, you are condemned (Jn 3:18). I find no indication, anywhere in the Scripture, that one *must be presented *with the Gospel. God is under no obligation to save anyone; the fact that He saves any speaks to His kindness, not our righteousness. Look at all the ungodly who perished in the O.T.

Grace,
Bill

 

[Zooey]

Yes, Noah finds grace because of God. This is, again, prevenient grace.However, what causes Noah to respond to this grace? More, what allows him to respond? There is something in him which recognizes that this is God moving toward him.
What is that something, if Noah is in a state of “utter depravity”? How does he know that this is something to be desired? If you say that God simply gives this grace, we are left in the same quandary as we were at the beginning.I repeat: What allows him to respond? I think that we must, to make sense of the response, acknowledge that there is something in Noah that is not utterly corrupted. There is something that, as it were “remembers” that God exists, & that at one time, God walked & spoke with man as friend with friend. Further, there is a longing to go back to that place. Something in the heart is homesick for the Father’s house. It is that something which is touched by God’s prevenient grace, & being touched, springs to life once again.
Is the natural man “dead in trespasses & sin”? Yes, so scripture teaches us. But there is something in there which is not sin, not evil. There is the “God shaped hole” of St Augustine. This is not a black hole; it is a wound which aches for the presence of the Spirit of God. And it is not “depraved”; it is **deprived **of its true home.
God bless.

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

Noah’s finding favor with God is because of God. We are saved by grace through faith. Salvation is from God, and it is always by grace through faith (Rom 1:17; Eph 2:8). Neither Noah, nor anyone else possesses an inherent righteousness.

I never said Noah possessed inherent righteousness, that Noah found favor with God apart from God’s grace, or even hinted that Noah was saved apart from faith in God. You are setting up straw men to argue against rather than focussing on the point being discussed - the meaning of total depravity.

You used Gen 6:5 to try to claim that all men (which would have to include Noah) are continually evil and totally depraved. I pointed out, as Scripture does, that the entirety of Gen 6 proves your literalist interpretation wrong. For Scripture contrasts Noah in Gen 6:8-9 with those people mentioned in Gen 6:5-7.

Gen 6:5-7
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Gen 6:8-9
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

It is for you to defend or retract your literalist interpretation - you must reconcile your claim that Noah’s every thought was continually evil with the Scriptural testimony that Noah found favor with God, was righteous, blameless, and walked with God.

That Noah’s favor with God, his righteousness, etc. is due to God is not up for dispute. For everything we have we receive from Him in the first place (see CCC 2007).

sonseeker:

Then Paul, too, has a literalist view as he restates this and more in (Rom 3:10ff).

Paul indeed restates this passage from the Scriptures - but that doesn’t mean Paul restates a literalist interpretation thereof. Paul does as Scripture continually does…contrasting the righteous who accept God’s grace with the unrighteous who reject God’s grace.

(I’ll continue with the rest of your post as soon as I can. Fighting a pretty nasty head cold right now…)

-Peace in Christ-

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Zooey:

Yes, Noah finds grace because of God. This is, again, prevenient grace.However, what causes Noah to respond to this grace? More, what allows him to respond? There is something in him which recognizes that this is God moving toward him.
What is that something, if Noah is in a state of “utter depravity”? How does he know that this is something to be desired? If you say that God simply gives this grace, we are left in the same quandary as we were at the beginning.I repeat: What allows him to respond? I think that we must, to make sense of the response, acknowledge that there is something in Noah that is not utterly corrupted. There is something that, as it were “remembers” that God exists, & that at one time, God walked & spoke with man as friend with friend. Further, there is a longing to go back to that place. Something in the heart is homesick for the Father’s house. It is that something which is touched by God’s prevenient grace, & being touched, springs to life once again.
Is the natural man “dead in trespasses & sin”? Yes, so scripture teaches us. But there is something in there which is not sin, not evil. There is the “God shaped hole” of St Augustine. This is not a black hole; it is a wound which aches for the presence of the Spirit of God. And it is not “depraved”; it is **deprived **of its true home.
God bless.

:clapping: Well stated - thank you! :clapping:

Peace in Christ!

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

When God deals justly with anyone, he is condemned. It is only by His mercy that we are saved. Man receives one of two things from God, Justice, or Mercy.

Seems we are now mincing words. Let me try as best as I can to be clear here. God’s justice is satisfied in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ - His mercy flows out of that justice in that the merit of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (eternal life with God, satisfaction for the price of sin) is offered as a free gift to all men, to either accept by the grace of God, or to reject of their own free will.

I am saying that God won’t condemn anyone without in some way offering them the chance to accept or reject Christ’s saving sacrifice. You are claiming this free gift is not offered to all men - and that just doesn’t jive with the entirety of Scripture.
How this happens, how this offer is made apart from being physically presented with the Gospel by Christ’s Church, we don’t know. All the more reason for the Church Christ founded to fulfil His command:

(Matt 28:18-20) And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

What we do know is that God desires all men be saved. Hence, all men must be offered the free gift of Salvation - those not physically presented with the Gospel must be offered this free gift in some way known to God alone. This reality is hinted at in the passage you brought out earlier, Romans 2:14-16.

Finally, I’d say that God’s mercy does not negate or take away from God’s justice - it fulfills it, as only God who is infinite love, can. Awsome stuff from an Awesome God

-Peace in Christ-

DustinsDad

(more to come…)

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

Which is it? Does man merit, or not? I say no (Rom 4:4). You say yes, and no.

It is as I already stated, as explained in the quotes from the Catechism. Man does not “merit” Salvation - it’s a free gift offered to man to accept or reject. That merit of eternal life belongs to Jesus Christ alone. The most merit humans can have is when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:6-10). If you have a problem with that, then you must either reconcile your beliefs with Rom. 2:6-11, and Gal. 6:6-10, or rip them from your Bible.

(Romans 2:6-11) For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
(Galations 6:6-10) Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches. Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

DustinsDad: Well, I’d say a couple of things here. A man’s conscience, though a free gift of God is truly a part of man, built into man’s nature, it is written in the heart of man. Man knows it, as you said, “instinctively”. That man can know certain truths of God instinctively and can struggle to cooperate with it, demonstrates man is not totally depraved. For if man was totally depraved, he would not even attempt to cooperate with his conscience.

SonSeeker: Now we are moving toward election/predestination. Man cannot move toward God, therefore he is totally depraved. The initial move is always from God to Man (Gen 3:8-9).Now we are moving toward election/predestination. Man cannot move toward God, therefore he is totally depraved.

No, we are not moving toward election/predestination - we are still talking about total depravity. I’m confused as to why you want to shift the discussion now

sonseeker:

The initial move is always from God to Man (Gen 3:8-9).

Exactly as the Church teaches:

(CCC 2008) The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

-Peace in Christ-

DustinsDad

 

[sonseeker]

This is getting a little annoying. The whole point of this discussion, as I remember, is that you were trying to convince me that Protestants and Catholics are not that far apart in what they believe, while I said that we are very far apart. I believe that my point has been made. Catholicism minimizes the effects of the fall—it’s not that bad of an effect on man—while I maintain that the fall was devastating to man—he is DEAD in his sin. Quite a difference! Do you now see that we are not at all close in our understanding of man and the fall?

DustinsDad:

I never said Noah possessed inherent righteousness, that Noah found favor with God apart from God’s grace, or even hinted that Noah was saved apart from faith in God. You are setting up straw men to argue against rather than focusing on the point being discussed - the meaning of total depravity.I never said that you said that Noah possessed inherent righteousness, did I? Straw man! Give me a break!

DustinsDad:

You used Gen 6:5 to try to claim that all men (which would have to include Noah) are continually evil and totally depraved. I pointed out, as Scripture does, that the entirety of Gen 6 proves your literalist interpretation wrong. For Scripture contrasts

Noah in Gen 6:8-9 with those people mentioned in Gen 6:5-7.Yes! It did include Noah! Notice the language is universal! There are no exceptions! Noah found favor with God because God gave Noah the ability to believe!

DustinsDad:

It is for you to defend or retract your literalist interpretation - you must reconcile your claim

that Noah’s every thought was continually evil with the Scriptural testimony that Noah found favor with God, was righteous, blameless, and walked with God.I have presented to you the truth of God’s word (Jn 17:17). You reject it because cannot square it empirically, and the CCC presents it in a manner that leaves it wide open to interpretation.

DustinsDad:

Paul indeed restates this passage from the Scriptures - but that doesn’t mean Paul restates a literalist interpretation thereof. Paul does as Scripture continually does…contrasting the righteous who accept God’s grace with the unrighteous who reject God’s grace.

Rom 3:10 says there is NONE RIGHTEOUS. You believe that you are made righteous by God, while you are here on this earth. Scripture teaches that righteousness is positional; it is not real (Is 64:6; Php 3:1-8). Paul is a literalist because he believes what he has been taught by God: Men are evil (Mt 7:11; 12:34; Lk 11:13).

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #132)

DustinsDad:

I am saying that God won’t condemn anyone without in some way offering them the chance to accept or reject Christ’s saving sacrifice. You are claiming this free gift is not offered to all men - and that just doesn’t jive with the entirety of Scripture.

Wrong again. What about all those who died in the flood? Did they hear the Gospel? What about all of the enemies of Israel, before the incarnation? What about John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” If one has not heard of Christ, he does not believe, and is judged already. He may at some point believe, and be brought out of judgment, but until then, he is already judged, and the judgment is that he does not believe. Where does that verse speak about believing or rejecting after hearing the Gospel?

DustinsDad:

What we do know is that God desires all men be saved. Hence, all men must be offered the free gift of Salvation - those not physically presented with the Gospel must be offered this free gift in some way known to God alone.Hence, you believe that all men must be offered the free gift. Many have perished, never hearing of Christ, and if they have not believed…(see Jn

3:18)

DustinsDad:

It is as I already stated, as explained in the quotes from the Catechism. Man does not “merit” Salvation - it’s a free gift

…**The most merit humans can have is when…**First the CCC does it and now you do it. Which is it? Merit, or no merit? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If it grace, it is FREE. If it is merited it is NOT FREE! Which do you believe? Scripture says NO MERIT Romans 11:6: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works [or merit!], otherwise grace is no longer grace. Remember Jn 17:17?

Bill

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

How bout a little charity, Bill?

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

I never said that you said that Noah possessed inherent righteousness, did I?

You used the statement “Neither Noah, nor anyone else possesses an inherent righteousness” as a defense for your position and as an attack on the Catholic position. It is a straw man argument because the Catholic position agrees it, and I would say obviously agrees with it. But perhaps you really were that misinformed or disillusioned as to what the Church teaches. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and apologize for the implied accusation that you did it on purpose.

sonseeker:

Yes! It did include Noah! Notice the language is universal! There are no exceptions! Noah found favor with God because God gave Noah the ability to believe!

I believe you are misinterpreting the language. Noah was the exception, notice the “But” in the transitional sentence, Gen. 6:8.

And yes, Noah was indeed given the gift, the grace, of belief. And the gift was accepted and not rejected. A somewhat crucial point that will undoubtedly transfer to the discussion of free will.

DustinsDad: It is for you to defend or retract your literalist interpretation - you must reconcile your claim that Noah’s every thought was continually evil with the Scriptural testimony that Noah found favor with God, was righteous, blameless, and walked with God.

Sonseeker: I have presented to you the truth of God’s word (Jn 17:17). You reject it because cannot square it empirically, and the CCC presents it in a manner that leaves it wide open to interpretation.

You have presented me with your personal interpretation of Scripture, towhich I am not bound. And a partial interpretation at that. I still don’t know if you believe Noah’s every thought was continually evil or not. Did that change with his regeneration?.

As I asked you way back in post #113, when I reminded you that your Westminster Confession states:“This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”

(Westminster Confession, Chapter VI, Verse V)

If the corruption of human nature due to Original Sin is as you say, completely and utterly dead - and if your Westminster Confession says “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated” - then do you believe you are still “dead; unable to do anything, dead, lights out, dead, deceased, dead”???

Please answer this question.

(continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(…Continued from above)

sonseeker:

Rom 3:10 says there is NONE RIGHTEOUS. You believe that you are made righteous by God, while you are here on this earth. Scripture teaches that righteousness is positional; it is not real (Is 64:6; Php 3:1-8). Paul is a literalist because he believes what he has been taught by God: Men are evil (Mt 7:11; 12:34; Lk 11:13).

Okay then. Do you take this literalist interpretation of none righteous to reject all the multitude of references in Scripture that there is in fact righteous folks?

was already given, towhich you never responded. And I also present to you, just picking a few of the many:

(Matt 10:41) He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

(Luke 23:50) Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe’a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

(James 5:16) Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

So yes my friend, I believe that one is made righteous by God, while here on this earth. And that is the key to understanding the verses you point out and are misinterpreting. No one is righteous apart from God, but with God’s grace, we are made righteous in Him.

sonseeker:

Wrong again. What about all those who died in the flood? Did they hear the Gospel? What about all of the enemies of Israel, before the incarnation? What about John 3:18

You keep restating what you believe, but without really addressing what I wrote to you (namely the multitude of Scripture references pointing to God’s desire that all men - the world - be saved. And of course there’s that one little verse from Romans that you haven’t addressed yet. (Romans 2:14-16) “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

This verse speaks of Gentiles who do not know the name of Christ, yet may be excused on the Day of Judgement by Him who judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I cannot force you to address this verse, or any others. Agree to disagree on this one then.

sonseeker:

Hence, you believe that all men must be offered the free gift. Many have perished, never hearing of Christ, and if they have not believed - (see Jn 3:18)

And how Christ offers this gift of belief, this yes or know to God, I do not know. He is the one that judges the secrets of men, not I.

sonseeker:

First the CCC does it and now you do it. Which is it? Merit, or no merit? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If it grace, it is FREE. If it is merited it is NOT FREE! Which do you believe? Scripture says NO MERIT Romans 11:6: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works [or merit!], otherwise grace is no longer grace. Remember Jn 17:17?

You stated yourself earlier in post #118 that “righteous works performed by the believer are rewarded by God.” And that is all the Catholic Church teaches.

Besides, in the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin. So my friend, if I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth, then so are you.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Sonseeker,

An interesting thought just occurred to me, and thus I have a question.

Given your (selective) literalist interpretations of Scripture, how do you reconcile Romans 3:11 with your screen name?
(Romans 3:11) “no one understands, no one seeks for God.”
Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Sonseeker,

Further thoughts on our Genesis 6 discussion…

It does not fit that the Lord’s words in Gen. 6:5 addressed a generic condition of man’s human nature that existed continually ever since the fall. It is, rather, related to specific sin/corruption that occurred at this particular point in time in human history - as noted in the immediately preceding verses:
(Genesis 6:1-4) When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
In a nutshell, what we have is the faithful men descending from Seth who called upon the Lord (Gen 4:26), being corrupted due to intermarrying with non-believers. After this is described, we see in verses 5-9 the resulting anger and wrath of God, and the subsequent recognition of Noah the one man still walking with God, finding favor with God.

(Enoch also is specifically mentioned as one who walked with God after the fall, but the Lord took him before this situation in Gen 6 occurred - see Gen 5:22-24)

If you want some deeper insight into what was going on in Gen 6:1-4, I suggest you look up some good Bible commentary on it. But be warned, there’s alot of junk interpretations out there on these verses. I’d suggest St. Augustine’s City of God, Book XV, Chapters 22 & 23.

Or Scott Hahn’s “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” (Chapter 4) if you trust a more modern look at this from a former Calvinist.

Peace,

DustinsDad

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay, I am going to offer a few comments and then I suggest that we all allow this thread to perish a languishing death since we seem to have reached the point of diminishing returns here and though there have been well stated arguments on both sides, no one is going to budge here. I commend you all for your efforts to make good cases for what you believe.

Bill, my friend, I just want to respond to one part of one of your latest posts that bothers me, though I’ve heard it stated by non-Catholics before.

What about all those who died in the flood? Did they hear the Gospel? What about all of the enemies of Israel, before the incarnation? What about John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” If one has not heard of Christ, he does not believe, and is judged already. He may at some point believe, and be brought out of judgment, but until then, he is already judged, and the judgment is that he does not believe. Where does that verse speak about believing or rejecting after hearing the Gospel?

This passage to me says it all quite clearly:
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. 12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things! "

I have to strongly disagree with these statements, mainly because your use of OT examples with reference to the Gospel is (IMO) weird. There was no gospel of Christ preached I the Ot and so there is no basis for that to be a part of someone’s judgement. You are saying then that God chooses who He wishes to save and to hell with the rest, literally. I can’t understyand how you can selectively read that as valid theology since there are so many passages that balance your verses out and show that God calls all men to ba saved. I could never, having read the Bible for myself, have come up with a belief like this that condemns innocents for ignorance. This would mean the a newborn that dies of crib death is damned as would be anyone that never heard the Gospel that you preach. This doesn’t conform to the rest of the context of the Bible Bill.

We cannot know for certain how God will deal with all those who do not hear the Gospel through no fault of their own, but we can know the character of the Almighty and ever living God that we encounter within the pages of the 73 books of the Bible.

I will never believe in an unjust God that condemns the innocent, especially when He teaches us in His word that it is morally wrong for us to do that very thing. This would make God immoral by His own standards and I will never believe that.

If this condemns me and all my Catholic brothers and sisters in your eyes, and cuts us off from charitable dialogue, that is extremely sad, but that is better than error (IMO), and that is what I see this as.

In the final analysis, this proves my point about the difference in world views in that those who hold this opinion see God as a cold and merciless machine that really cares nothing for His creation, while I see Him as the one who loves His creation so much that He sent His Only Son to die as a sacrificial lamb for us all, so that all men might come to know Him and spend eternity with Him in heaven. This means that those who hold that view will have to find some way to disregard the justice and mercy of God while thanking God for choosing them to be saved while all the rest of mankind goes to hell whether they’ve done anything to deserve it or not. These two divergent concepts run through both religions, even to their respective cores.

A wounded nature is one thing…a disinterested God that does not love what He sent His Son to redeem is something completely else again.

God’s mercy and peace be with you all.

 

[DustinsDad]

sonseeker:

This is getting a little annoying. The whole point of this discussion, as I remember, is that you were trying to convince me that Protestants and Catholics are not that far apart in what they believe, while I said that we are very far apart. I believe that my point has been made.

Concerning total depravity, no…I don’t think the point has been made that we are all that far apart on the notion of total depravity. It is, rather, the conclusions you draw from the fall that is problematic. It would be more difficult to reconcile the other four points of Calvinism with Church teaching than with the notion of total depravity.

But until you can go deeper into explaining your beliefs on total depravity and reconciling them with all of Scripture, and answering the questions put to you regarding the same, I don’t think we can really say for sure what your point on total depravity even is - aside from an incessant desire not to agree on any point or on any level with the Catholic Church - even if that means distorting what Church teaching actually is (see below).

sonseeker:

Catholicism minimizes the effects of the fall - it’s not that bad of an effect on man - while I maintain that the fall was devastating to man - he is DEAD in his sin. Quite a difference! Do you now see that we are not at all close in our understanding of man and the fall?

To say that Catholicism “minimizes the effects of the fall”, that Catholicism says “it’s not that bad of effect on man”, is to bear false witness to the teachings of the Church. It seems an attempt to distort the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to maintain a complete rejection of them.

I encourage you again to read and re-read the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the fall of man:

(paragraphs 396 to 412).

And until such time as you want to actually go further into really explaining your beliefs, I reluctantly suggest we call a halt to this discussion. And I say reluctantly because I really enjoy discussing Calvinism more than most other Protestant views - more enjoyable to me personally as I love the deep and philosophical questions it raises - it really stretches the ol’ mind and forces one to think in deeper terms about man and his relationship with our Creator.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we will come away realizing that we were closer on some points of Christian teaching than you originally thought.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad