Flower children, pick your TULIP's here

[Ubenedictus]

Not every action is a sin. Every action is tainted by sin, however remote that tainting may be.

A murderer may boast that he spared the lives of 99 men, but he is still guilty for the death of the one.

See above.

See above.

Maybe this will help Tulip and Reformed Theology.

It’s not absolute depravity. But men are dead in their sins. You can do no good if you are dead. But neither are you as bad as you can be. But dead is still pretty bad.

I wish I had time to answer you more fully, but I don’t. Maybe later.

I can’t say I really understand it…we can do good but the good is still sin? It makes nature seem graceless, as though we stopped been the image of God.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tomyris:

Every action is tainted by sin, however remote that tainting may be.

I asked if babies COMMIT sin.

You replied “see above”.

But i’m still not clear on what YOU think.

Are babies “tainted” in the sense of COMMITTING sin?
Or are they “tainted” in the sense of Original Sin (lacking sactifying grace)?

What do you mean here?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Why are you trying to get a good explanation of Calvinism on a Catholic forum? Good grief. How about you head over to a Lutheran forum to get a good understand of, say, the Assumption of Mary, or an Orthodox forum to understand Presbyterian polity? There are Calvinist forums out there, which is where your question rightly belongs, unless you just want Catholic criticism of Calvinism. There is plenty of THAT here.

I find that a bit insulting since this forum has a large amount of both former Calvinists and current Calvinists. It’s kind of open to everyone for a reason. I don’t ask you why non Catholics are allowed on here

 

[FollowChrist34]

It’s a fine line between dialogue and bashing, alas. I do welcome our non Catholic contributors. The more the merrier. And I would personally ask a Calvinist about Tulip, first at least. Not a Catholic. (why do so many threads involve questions you can just google?) Tulip will just get attacked here. I am not going to defend it. But we should not go out of our way to goad non Catholics.

That said, it is fun in kind of a sad way to fight this stuff over and over. Always interesting anyway. I won’t deny that. But then I enjoy talking about the weather.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s intellectual play. 95% of the reason I’m here.

I also stick with the more apologetic threads. There’s the common understanding that you need to show up with your loins girded.

 

[FollowChrist34]

It’s intellectual play. 95% of the reason I’m here.

Precisely.

Gymnastics for the mind. I think it helps people sort out and understand their faith as well. A good.

 

[Mammoths]

I can think of many Protestants who would object to this being called “Protestant Theology”.

Well if that what you you have stated then yes in a very simple sense Total Depravity is a result of original sin. What I am missing would be you reason why you feel this is a problem?

NOTE: I am not professing as a Calvinist. Merely trying to understand and answer the question. I do feel I am somewhat informed on Calvinism (though I rather would call it “Reformed Theology” as even Calvin would object to his name being put on some kind of belief), considering my history and interests. If I may help, I will gladly. I really just need to understand your questions.

Protestant theology is different from denomination. It includes calvenism and Arminianism among others. So you are right. Many would object to Calvinism. I wonder if any would object to what I put as being Calvinism mis-articulated.

 

[Mammoths]

Tomyris:

I can’t answer for Mammoths, but considering Mammoth listed his (her?) religion as “under construction . . . Catholic?” perhaps he wants a Calvinist view versus a Catholic perspective.

On this forum there is a pretty good chance we can have that dialogue.

I also think he’s asking if he is . . . stating the Calvinist perspective accurately.

If you are a Calvinist (almost certainly: “Evangelical Presbyterian”), just reaffirm him (or correct him if you think he’s over or understating one of the TULIP traditions).

Then he can ALSO be involved first hand in a Calvinist and Catholic discussion.

I think its quite reasonable in this situation to discuss these issues right here on Catholic Answers Forums (CAF).

Likely your questions here are very reasonable right here at CAF Mammoths:thumbsup:.

But that’s just my two cents.

Tomyris. How do YOU characterize “total depravity”? How do you define it Scriptrally as well?

Thanks, that is my intent. I noticed when I was reading Scott haun’s book that Protestantism was different for him than me. I remember saying, “he doesn’t know what he left.” I was probably wrong in his case. But my fear is that in researching one explanation of the church I will lose knowledge of the alternative. Then I won’t be making a fair comparison. As Catholicism makes more sense, I wonder if I have forgotten the other point of view.

 

[Tomyris]

As someone who actually attended classes at a reformed-leaning Baptist Seminary, this is an absolute departure from the notion of depravity as forwarded by Calvin himself. He posited that we are in complete rebellion, “enemies of God”.

This departure became a little more popular as more and more Calvinists came around to the idea that “Total Depravity” is completely unworkable when you leave the debate hall and actually look at people.

I believe I made comments about about not calling myself a Calvinist. Others seem determined to slap that label on me. Look! A CALVINIST! GET OUT THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!

Calvin’s view of total depravity is not the same as that held by many, although there are some who still hold to it.

Man in sin is described as dead, as in rebellion against God, etc. I am more pragmatic: whether or dead or simply in rebellion, you should get out of there.

What greater love is there than when a man lays down his life for another? How often do we see this very act of ultimate sacrifice performed outside a Christian society?

And what of the law being written on our hearts? If we were Calvin-level depraved, we wouldn’t know it. But we do. It rebukes us when we give it cause to and we feel it.

Total Depravity simply does not work.

Sin permeates us in totality. Maybe my definition is different from yours, but if I recall correctly the links I gave support it. There are also those out there who insist total depravity is absolute depravity: we are as bad as we can be. I think it is more that even though we may do good deeds, those deeds are still, in some way, tainted by sin.

The Catholic view that you are an agent free to walk toward or away from God is the accurate, historical, consistent and scriptural view.

The other petals of TULIP don’t fare any better, without exception.

Opinion. Aquinas was a Catholic who supported predestination. And election. I support both free will and predestination. STA supported both as well. Most people running around here seem to be more Molinist.

 

[Tomyris]

I can’t say I really understand it…we can do good but the good is still sin? It makes nature seem graceless, as though we stopped been the image of God.

An act can be objectively good but the doer can still be sinning in committing it. St. Thomas Aquinas discussed this in his Summa.

 

[Tomyris]

I find that a bit insulting since this forum has a large amount of both former Calvinists and current Calvinists. It’s kind of open to everyone for a reason. I don’t ask you why non Catholics are allowed on here

Please don’t take it like that.

And I don’t think there are a whole lot of Reformed folk here.

 

[Tomyris]

Tomyris:

I asked if babies COMMIT sin.

You replied “see above”.

But i’m still not clear on what YOU think.

Are babies “tainted” in the sense of COMMITTING sin?
Or are they “tainted” in the sense of Original Sin (lacking sactifying grace)?

What do you mean here?

I’m not a baby. They have original sin, yes. Given the chance, they will sin.

Past that, I am not sure. It sounds like a ‘Lord, what about this man’ and the response is something like, ‘what is that to you - you follow me.’

I know God is good and merciful and wise and just. He does what is right at all times. I don’t know the solution, at least not off hand.

 

[Tomyris]

It’s a fine line between dialogue and bashing, alas. I do welcome our non Catholic contributors. The more the merrier. And I would personally ask a Calvinist about Tulip, first at least. Not a Catholic. (why do so many threads involve questions you can just google?) Tulip will just get attacked here. I am not going to defend it. But we should not go out of our way to goad non Catholics.

That said, it is fun in kind of a sad way to fight this stuff over and over. Always interesting anyway. I won’t deny that. But then I enjoy talking about the weather.

It’s intellectual play. 95% of the reason I’m here.

I also stick with the more apologetic threads. There’s the common understanding that you need to show up with your loins girded.

Precisely.

Gymnastics for the mind. I think it helps people sort out and understand their faith as well. A good.

Thank you. That helps.

I don’t particularly think about TULIP that often.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tomyris (emphasis and parenthesis mine):

Given the chance, they (babies) will sin.

OK.

It sounds like a ‘Lord, what about this man’ and the response is something like, ‘what is that to you - you follow me.’

That’s OK too Tomyris. Its OK by me as I am not asking about “this man” or that man.

Right now at least, I just want to get a good understanding of your theology (not a given person).

And YOUR theology says babies commit sins.

And I am not going to challenge that (yet). I am just attempting to see what your theological worldview is.

And “grace”? What do YOU teach and think about what God’s grace is?

 

[Cathoholic]

An act can be objectively good but the doer can still be sinning in committing it. St. Thomas Aquinas discussed this in his Summa.

I just want to claify this for any lurkers.

This does NOT mean all acts are bad.

An action has the act itself, the intention, and the circumstances.

So if a guy holds the door for a girl he’s dating because he wants to be kind and generous, that’s fine.

But if the same guy holds the same door for the same gal, while INTENDING to use it to “soften her up” so he can take advantage of her, it’s NOT a good act.

 

[Tomyris]

Tomyris (emphasis and parenthesis mine):

OK.

That’s OK too Tomyris. Its OK by me as I am not asking about “this man” or that man.

Right now at least, I just want to get a good understanding of your theology (not a given person).

And YOUR theology says babies commit sins.

That is not what I said.

And I am not going to challenge that (yet). I am just attempting to see what your theological worldview is.

Sounds ominous.

And “grace”? What do YOU teach and think about what God’s grace is?

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

It is not some substance to be dispensed and controlled by the church for political purposes, that is certain. It is not something embedded in objects that brings luck, like a pagan magical charm or talisman with supernatural powers. Grace should not be removed from the presence of God, because it never is so removed in Scripture, and should not be quantified.

Grace is God’s favor towards some people. There is common grace, given to all, and then there is saving grace, given to the elect. Grace is a gift, never earned, never deserved by mankind, a free gift of a loving God, not something to be measured out drop by drop, as if God is a miser, but overflowing in its richness and power: God’s presence, His forgiveness, His favor, His love, His benevolent care and providence for His children. It is a gift, not a wage, freely given, not earned, bestowed, not taken, a blessing, not a demand by man for a just reward.

Grace is closely related to mercy. Without mercy we would all be dead, because there would only be justice. Mercy and justice met at the cross, and because of that finished and complete work grace is available to man. Without mercy there would be no grace because without the finished work of Christ on the cross there would be no satisfaction, and God could not look with favor upon mankind. God extends grace, He extends forgiveness, He loves, and all these are part of grace and interwoven with it, like a textile. If you pull one strand out, you no longer have the cloth. If you pull grace out and look at it separately, you no longer have the cloth, you have something less than the cloth composed of all the other elements that go with it. You cannot pull grace out and look at it without looking at everything else at the same time.

 

[Cathoholic]

I attempted to discern your theology from what you were saying. I eventually came up with . . . .

And YOUR theology says babies commit sins.

Your reply?

That is not what I said.

OK. Fair enough Tomyris.

Look. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to pin down your “total depeavity” belief.

So what DO you assert about babies, sin, and “total depravity”?

 

[Tomyris]

I attempted to discern your theology from what you were saying. I eventually came up with . . . .

Your reply?

OK. Fair enough Tomyris.

Look. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to pin down your “total depeavity” belief.

So what DO you assert about babies, sin, and “total depravity”?

What is the difference between this ‘discussion’ and an interrogation? Not much. I am not enjoying this, so good-bye.,

 

[Cathoholic]

Earlier Tomyris said . . .

Tulip type versus all the Catholic posters in NCR and Apologetics? It is not even, not by a long shot. You are sure to lose the debate.

Here is John Piper with a decent answer that is not too long:

John Piper on Total Depravity

People can do good, but the good they do is always tainted by sin. Sin infects every part of a person. So nothing man* does on his own is acceptable to God. I think that is a good summary.

I re-read most of Piper’s paper (I’ve read it before because its been linked by other Calvinists who ALSO don’t want to attempt to define “total depravity”).

That paper was not persuasive in the least.

Here on this thread, I can’t even get Tomyris to define what “total depravity” is or isn’t.

When I attempted to get it in a clarified exact form, right from “the horse’s mouth”, I got this . . . .

What is the difference between this ‘discussion’ and an interrogation? Not much. I am not enjoying this, so good-bye.,

So I will define it myself later when I have a chance to come back here. I’ll try to use Tomyris’ exact words when possible.

And it wouldn’t surprise me to see some Calvinist come onto the thread and denounce me for “misrepresenting” total depravity, “attacking a straw man”, or accuse me of being “un-Biblical” or “conservative” or “liberal” or some other pejorative.

All the while never really addressing the issue.

Tomyris could see where I was going with his argument concerning babies, sin, and “total depravity” and knew he couldn’t defend it.

Tomyris MAY have also have known “total depravity” CONTRADICTS Sacred Scripture but I won’t assume that much. When you’ve been imbibing Calvinist theology for a long time (some since they were children) it’s very difficult to overcome the distortions that are part of the Calvinist traditions.

“Total Depravity” is a tradition of men that nullifies the Word of God.

I’ll come back later and expound on these items in more detail.

 

[MichaelP3]

Earlier Tomyris said . . .

I re-read most of Piper’s paper (I’ve read it before because its been linked by other Calvinists who ALSO don’t want to attempt to define “total depravity”).

That paper was not persuasive in the least.

Here on this thread, I can’t even get Tomyris to define what “total depravity” is or isn’t.

When I attempted to get it in a clarified exact form, right from “the horse’s mouth”, I got this . . . .

So I will define it myself later when I have a chance to come back here. I’ll try to use Tomyris’ exact words when possible.

And it wouldn’t surprise me to see some Calvinist come onto the thread and denounce me for “misrepresenting” total depravity, “attacking a straw man”, or accuse me of being “un-Biblical” or “conservative” or “liberal” or some other pejorative.

All the while never really addressing the issue.

Tomyris could see where I was going with his argument concerning babies, sin, and “total depravity” and knew he couldn’t defend it.

Tomyris MAY have also have known “total depravity” CONTRADICTS Sacred Scripture but I won’t assume that much. When you’ve been imbibing Calvinist theology for a long time (some since they were children) it’s very difficult to overcome the distortions that are part of the Calvinist traditions.

“Total Depravity” is a tradition of men that nullifies the Word of God.

I’ll come back later and expound on these items in more detail.

You are a bit harsh on Tomyris

I would love to see your further explanation AND how it contradicts scripture. Be sure to quote from the Reformed Confessions and Calvin’s Systematic Theology when you do.

Regards