A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I’m going to deal with this in a very southern Protestant way. Faith without works is dead. Bible says it I believe it.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, God doesn’t will sin. Either way, the human will-your will- cannot be removed from the equation. God simply does not completely override it, even as He does aid it.
There’s a basic difference in our view of man. In Catholic teaching, man is a being of dignity and nobility, worthy of great respect. That didn’t change with the fall, even as we may well, by abuses of our own free wills, diminish our dignity. As it is man’s wounded, lost, separated from the One from Whom all righteousness flows, unable to keep his head all the way up, morally speaking, as he lacks the spiritual strength to do so on his own. As a result he fails; he inevitably falls into sin to one degree or another, in one manner or another-and all sin weakens him and eats away at his inner dignity and integrity all the more, the most serious sins leading to death-or *back *to death if he’s earlier turned to God at some point in his life and later fallen away again.
B
benhur
Guest
Agree. Did not take my will out of equation
Right. We call that ‘good’, as in God saw that we were a “good” creation, in the beginning.
Well it did change, what was once good is now not. However, the other part of this is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, to restore us to that original “good”.
Understand, but we are not born "good’. We are born dead , in trespasses and sin.
Blessings
F
fhansen
Guest
No, man’s goodness may be compromised but his inherent, basic goodness, being made in the image of God, can never be taken away. All creation continues to bear the marks of God’s handiwork. Your theology is based on a flawed understanding of man and of God-of His nature and will. Such theology is purely theoretical-and fails to reflect the way things work in real life.
In earthly life, as in God’s kingdom, we’re subject to being held accountable for what we do, because we’re not beasts; we’re morally responsible beings, even as some may be more responsible, some less. We must in any case choose. But with your beliefs, taken to their logical conclusion, God created some human beings, through no fault or choice of their own, to spend *eternity in torment *, while electing others to spend eternity in bliss, likewise without regard to their choice in the matter. Such a god would be a tyrant, ultimately responsible for all evil, worse than satan. There’d be no rhyme or reason for man’s exile from the garden; it’d just be a sojourn into a world of pain, suffering, and death, mixed with some occasional joy and pleasure, culminating in a destiny good or bad, at God’s sheer whim.
That’s simply not God, nor is it His plan. He didn’t create puppets-and we know this intuitively if we take an honest look at the matter. Our wills will always be involved in our eternal destiny, wills that may always oppose God’s will, regardless of grace given. And that destiny is worked out throughout the course of our lives, synergistically, with He alone judging our choices and actions in the end, what we did with what we were given, He alone knowing whose names are written in the Book of Life beforehand.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding (or just willfully rejecting) what Catholics believe. No one here is saying that any human is "good enough to choose in our fallen state. No one comes to God unless they are drawn, and it is this grace to which we respond that allows us to choose.
Calvin adopted an erroneous conception of the fallen state, so has to create an erroneous soteriology to compensate. But too much scripture has to be set aside to adopt his views on total depravity and regeneration.
Being drawn to repentance and baptism does not equate to being able to “see the kingdom”. Repentance and the washing away of sins is a beginning, and allows one to be able to develop the sight to perceive the Kingdom.
I am sure that it does seem absurd for all those who have embraced the error of total depravity.
God is not bound by the Sacrament, but the Apostles never separated the bath from the regeneration. Many scriptures that reference baptism are denied by those who reject the regenerative nature of it.
G
guanophore
Guest
One has to wonder, why is it so important to depart from the Apostolic teaching on this point? I am thinking that accepting what the Apostles believed and taught on this point would destabilize other pillars of the doctrines that were created at the time of the Reformation.
This is one of those innovations. The Fall did not erase the “good” that God created in us. We are born into a fallen world, in a fallen state, separated from God. But nothing can separate us from His love, or the good that he pronounced in us at the Beginning.
We are lost without His grace, but the teaching that we lost all the “good” He created in us is not consistent with the Apostolic message.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi g,
Can you show me where an apostle says you can believe with being born of the Spirit ?
We go in circles over words. That something is good can mean perfect, or moral, or nice etc… Bad can mean imperfect, immoral, not so nice. We know God saw His creation as good (perfect, moral,nice). What would He say after the fall ? I would simply say He would say it is not good (imperfect, immoral, not so nice) and sets out to fix or restore it. I don’t think neither of us would disagree with all (negative and positive) scripture has to say about the current status of God’s creation.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
misprint.meant :Can you show me where an apostle says you can believe without being born of the Spirit ?
F
fhansen
Guest
James 2:19
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not prepared to accept your translation of what God meant by “good”. Especially “nice”. Really, that sounds quite corny.
God said quite a few things after the Fall (don’t know that any of your suggestions apply) and indeed did set out to restore us.
I don’t think we would disagree about most of it, true. But definitely Calvin’s concept of total depravity was not taught by the Apostles. Here is an example:
24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28*for
‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your poets have said,
‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ (Acts. 17)
Paul is in the Aeropagus talking to the Epicurean and Stoic philosphers. This would be the ideal time to promote the concept of total depravity, since both these schools of philosophy recognized the inherint good in mankind. But instead, Paul states that God created humankind so that they would seek him. The Greek here is ψηλαφάω, to grope about, as if feeling one’s way through a room in the dark, trying not to stumble over the furniture. The fact that humans are inherintly religious (in this case building idols) and the motivation to “grope” after God is the fruit of being made in His likeness.
That depends upon what you mean by “believe”. Even the demons believe.
How do humans “grope” without being born of the Spirit? And why would they, if the desire created in them to do so was “dead”?
B
benhur
Guest
Well we have been talking about folks who can do works or be baptized. Do demons get baptized ? Please try again. Can humans believe (unto righteousness) without being born of the Spirit ?
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi g,
Corny is as corny does… Adam was perfect, moral, and I would think" nice". As a matter of fact I would think any positive/good adjectives could be used for things before the fall
So you do not know if “imperfect”, capable of immorality, or not being nice apply to fallen man ?
So is there a contradiction when God says " No man seeks after God ? That he is made to seek does not mean he seeks. That I am “fearfully and wonderfully made” does not mean I am always ‘wonderful’.
We grope because we are dead. We are blind because we are dead and have no sight. Again, God has to change our ‘desires’. Even nature gropes for His full restoration. So then does nature have moral goodness then ?
Blessings
F
fhansen
Guest
Concepts such as “imperfect, immoral, not so nice” don’t necessarily imply total corruption; they actually tend to support the Catholic position: fallen, wounded, compromised, etc. And lots of unbelievers that I know of are quite nice and moral, relatively speaking, even if imperfect. This simple truth should give pause to those who would cling to a position of fallen man being totally depraved or corrupted/immoral in an absolute sense. In order to make that theology fit we have to blind ourselves to the simple truth that, while lost apart from his Creator, fallen man isn’t completely fallen; he isn’t “bad” in the sense of some entity give totally over to evil, without any sign of love or goodness remaining. He just isn’t “good enough” in his fallen state, far from it, in fact. And even in our state as believers we’re far from good enough; God wants much more* for *us; He’s drawing us to a much higher level of perfection. Christians end up too isolated, too sure of themselves while often fearful of the world, caught up in an “us vs them” mentality, with “them” being evil, “us” being good. It’s not so cut and dry in reality-and God loves all humankind intensely.
And the Church of God doesn’t teach that Adam had yet achieved his ultimate perfection, even as he was certainly made perfect according to his nature, “perfectly man” so to speak. But until he freely chooses to embrace his Creator, fully turned towards and bound to/in union with God, man’s justice is incomplete.
James was addressing your very point, chastising those who were boasting of or in any case relying solely on their faith, having “faith in their faith”, so to speak, carried away by easy believism. It’s simply an inherent danger of the faith alone doctrine.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi fh,
neither does total depravity.
And the P and O position also
Have no idea what you mean by “an absolute sense”. Total depravity has a context, that we are absolutely dependent on God’s grace for salvation. So of course we may good in other ways. Jesus said the unrighteous can have some righteousness as in fallen parents teaching their kids properly or loving them etc.
Agree to the latter but not the former. To God fallen is fallen, hence He said you break one law you have broken them all.
yes, especially if Christians think good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.
Absolutely, amen . I am not a 5 point Calvinist
Not sure what that means. never heard that.
Sorry, that was not my point, but addresses a different point being brought up, neglecting the actual question: Can one have genuine faith with out being born of the Spirit ?
Blessings
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, that is exactly what it does. Either that, or the person(s) who translated the concept into English didn’t understand the language. To be depraved means to be wicked, evil and sinful. To be ‘totally depraved’ thus logically means that you are totally wicked, evil and sinful.
I trust that the person(s) who translated the concept into English understood the language just fine, and I tend to take people at their words. If they did write that man in the postlapsarian state is ‘totally depraved,’ then the logical thing is to assume that they really believe that man in the postlapsarian state is totally wicked, evil and sinful.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi K,
Kindly disagree. You can take a word (or two) from Webster’s dictionary and by themselves that is what they mean. But from my understanding , words are chained into sentences, then paragraphs, giving context. I mean an action can be totally depraved but the person may not be. The context of totally depraved in religious circles is then narrowed down to discussion of man’s ability to reunite with God. Would you prefer totally spiritually dead, in trespasses and sins, or are we just “dead” in trespasses and sins ?
But I could be wrong, but that is how I read it, whether true or not to the coiners of the term.
Blessings
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Apostles taught that we are born of the Spirit in Baptism. Those who enter the bath of regenration “calling upon His name” certainly are carried by grace, through faith, into the waters.
In that case, thou hast done cornily.
“Nice” is not a Scriptural term used to describe anyone in a state of grace (righteousness or right relationship with God).
If you want to have a theological discussion, then lets use some accepted terminology.
definitely I would agree that even unfallen man was capable of immorality (otherwise there would not have been a “Fall”). God created man “good”, in a state to be most perfectly what he was created to be.
None at all. If you look at the context of that quote, you will see that the Psalmist is talking about the faithless, and contrasting them with the faithful. Paul does the same in using the passge, compares the unbelieving Gentiles with unbelieving Jews. Context, context, context. It is inappropriate to rip verses from their context and create doctrines from them.
He seeks. He often goes off track, and instead of seeking His Creator, seeks things of the flesh, such as his own hubris, riches, ,power, etc. But the God sized hole remains.
Our hearts are restless unti they rest in Him.
Of course not.
No, we grope because we are created to be in fellowship with Him, and despite being separated, our desire is for Him. Yes, God has to chage our desires but more important, our state of being enslaved by the flesh.
I am not sure what you mean by “does nature have moral goodness”. Nature was designed to be in right relationship with God, and groans awaiting what God has prepared. In the same way, the human soul is restless, groping and desiring right relationship with God. God has designed Creation this way. Does that mean it is “morally good”? I don’t think so. It is not anything nature or humans as part of nature have willfully chosen. He created it this way.
I think that depends upon one’s definition. Most of the content in your posts seems Calvanist, so I am going assume that you are adopting a Calvanist definition. You seem to believe that man is incapable of choosing to move toward God unless they have been born again first.
This concept is Catholic.
Where we seem to disgree is that Catholics believe that, when Jesus was lifted up on the cross, He draws all humankind to Himself. Those who respond to the drawing grace enter Life when they are born again.
It is interesting that fallen human beings can still have moral good…
We believe what the Apostle Paul wrote about people being judged in the light of their conscience.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have espoused some sort of hybrid of doctrines.
Adam and Eve were created to be perfectly human. That does not mean they have a divine nature.
What is “genuine faith”? Did Cornelius have it before the Holy Spirit fell upon him and his household?
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, and most were immediately water baptized .They were almost simultaneous events, but not always. Still think one has to believe first before any water and that one can not believe without a new spirit. But I really like your words of “carried by grace, through faith, into the waters”.
If you want to have a theological discussion, then lets use some accepted terminology. Sorry , I was lured off the path with another unacceptable phrase, that of “man’s basic goodness”.
Totally agree. That is why I posted that fallen man (unregenerate, faithless) does not have the goodness seek after God.
agreed.
Why would God have to change our desire, even will, if “our desire is for Him”, as you say ? Yes we are made to need him , but our flesh does not desire Him.
It has been awhile since looking at Armeneism /Calvinism. I like certain things from both. Certainly the unregenerate man can be drawn, convicted heart stricken, reasoned with, one step at a time. He can kick all the way or maybe make baby step decisions. I would say that the finish line of saving faith is a pure gift. Did I choose it ?, I would think so. Did he predestine me, predispose me ? I would think so, for I now believe what I would not, and when I would, I could not save He gave it to me. How can you choose for something you do not believe ?
Again, the grace also is that we respond positively.
And that it can also be a detriment, getting in the way of needing a Savior.It is interesting that fallen human beings can still have moral good…
Yes. The sign before the Pearly Gates reads, “Well done for you chose wisely whom to serve that day”. You get to the other side and a sign reads, " You have been chosen before the foundations of the Earth"
But it was also posted they had not reached ultimate perfection. God said it was “very good”, not as "deity’’ but as partakers in His divine nature, as in a spiritual being.
Faith that saves, not like the devil. Cornelius had it before water baptism. He also had OT faith, and the falling HS gave him the NT infusion.
Blessings
V
Vico
Guest
Total depravity concept is not acceptable to Catholics because man can clearly act justly on a natural level and by nature. Some dogmas for this are:
- The Grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Pope Pius V condemned proposition of Baius)
- Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Pope Pius V condemned proposition of Baius)
- For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required. (Council of Trent)
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
There is a sense in which one can say that man can not do anything good without God’s grace, like St. Thomas says here,
Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever.
And this is a good quote from St. Thomas in the S.Th. summarizing the whole deal:
And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.
newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#article2
Garrigou-Lagrange talks a little bit about the distinction between what was condemned about Baius’s statements and the Catholic teachings in his commentary here.
ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace2.htm
Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever.
And this is a good quote from St. Thomas in the S.Th. summarizing the whole deal:
And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.
newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#article2
Garrigou-Lagrange talks a little bit about the distinction between what was condemned about Baius’s statements and the Catholic teachings in his commentary here.
ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace2.htm
- Status