Help me answer an important Calvinist question

[Pax]

Michael (Gottle of Geer),

We may be speaking past one another. I agree with much of what you have said in response to my posts. Please understand that I am fully aware of the fact that human righteousness is nothing compared to the righteousness of Christ. Furthermore, I agree that there is nothing that man can do to save himself. I stated as much in one of my early posts on this subject.

When we carefully study scripture we can easily determine the state of mankind. We are of Adam and share in his legacy. We are born in unbelief and disobedience. This does not mean that man is basically evil nor does it mean that man is “totally” depraved. The verses I quoted from scripture were not intended to describe the degree of injury to man as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. The scriptural passages were quoted in order to show that the Calvinist terminology goes too far.

Man is created in the image and likeness of God and the fall did not change that. God does not create junk. Man is apparently worth saving, and God so loves us that He is willing to send His only begotten son to redeem us. Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity is perhaps the best description of man’s fallen nature that I have ever read. He describes the profound depths to which man has fallen due to Adam’s sin, but at the same time he manages to show that the Calvinistic view of total depravity is inappropriate.

Think of it this way. While our salvation only comes by way of Jesus, that does not mean that a man cannot love, be compassionate, be merciful, or perform other objectively virtuous acts. These things are good and they are a reflection of what God has created in His image and likeness. Man is not basically evil. Unfortunately, “total depravity” indicates that he is.

I have read Calvinist formulas and expositions and in my experience and opinion they inevitably go over the edge at some point. I believe that this is precisely why the average Calvinist on the street (admittedly not well instructed) believes that man is basically evil. I do not agree with your contention that the question posed to them is too vague or improperly structured. It never ocurred to me to even ask the question until a Calvinist uttered the statement that “man was basically evil.” I was so surprised by the comment and queried him about it. Following this, I began my little survey. Some of the people I have spoken with are pretty savvy, but they still gave the same answer. I cannot help but find their responses to be indicative of the teaching. I certainly agree that it is possible that my sample is too small and that those that are better schooled in the doctrines might answer differently. So far, however, no one has come forward with a different response. Even after discussions they will not budge from their position.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

I should make one other point. Total depravity also feeds into the concept of imputed righteousness, in which a man remains polluted, as opposed to infused righteousness where man is made righteous, and is truly a new creation.

I hope this clarifies some of what I’m trying to get at.

 

[Gene_C]

Pax,

Is it possible that God’s righteousness is infused AND imputed at the same time?

I’m listening to Father Corapi as I write this and he just said that when we are “in Christ,” we are pleasing to the Father, and THEN our works have merit.

When we sin mortally, we are not “in Christ,” until we repent, confess and receive absolution. Then we are back in a state of grace, we are “in Christ.”

I also heard another priest in a Bible study say the same thing. Everything that Christ is, we are, as long as we are in a state of grace.

The Calvinist believes that the elect can never lose that state of being “in Christ,” by which we are justified by Christ’s righteousness. Catholic dogma teaches that we CAN lose it.

We not only have His righteousness infused into us by the Holy Spirit but we are “covered” by His righteousness, as long as we are in a state of grace.

What do you think?

Gene

 

[Pax]

Gene,

You are certainly on to something, and I would agree that that there is a juridical dimension to justification that would be bound up in the concept of imputed righteousness. In the case of justification, we disagree with Protestant views largely because of what they deny rather than what they affirm.

 

[Bishopite]

There are some excellent arguments against the “Calvinist” position posted. But let’s remember that their are different degrees of Calvinisim and some do believe in free will, that’s one of the essential problems with Protestantism (I know I was once a Calvinist but not a 5 point Calvinist who converted to Catholicism);perhaps it seems this Calvinist is a 5 point Calvinist or T.U.L.I.P. Calvinist where T=total depravity U=unconditional election L=limited attonement I=irrisitable grace P=perseverance of the saints are devoutely held. All of these are easily debunked with Scripture and logical arguments, yet it is the contention of TULIP Calvinists that Christ didn’t die for everyone nor want everyone saved, only the “elect.” The problem is how does one “know” if they are the “elect?” Protestant apologist James White once debated another Protestant apologist named Dave Hunt who is just anti-Catholic as White; I head it on real audio on Whites website called straightgate.net or .com or .org perhaps or something like that. Nevertheless, White makes his case for Calvinism by using this analogy to Hunt that I’m paraphrasing. Suppose there is this burning building and in that building is 10 people. Those people in that building are horrible sinners that can only choose sin and never choose good. God sends Christ to save some in that building and only saves 5 because He chose those whom He willed; again all are sinners condemned to die but God saved whom He chose. Hunt who is Arminian in his theology actually comes back with a good response and says why would a loving God only choose to save some and leave the others?

White comes back with the argument that they are already without the ability to choose good and will always choose bad.

The fallacy of Whites argument is that it starts with a false presuposition as does this persons, in that it supposes everyone can’t choose good but only chooses bad; this type of false pretence will lead one into a false conclusion. Now we can choose good but only with Gods grace FIRST; He gives us the grace to have faith and when we respond He saves us as long as we cooperate with that grace until death.

Calvinists total depravity the “T” in TULIP is what makes them form a false conclusion. When Adam and Eve fell from the garden they didn’t loose all grace, no not at all and if they had the would have ceased to exist. What they lost was the grace necessary to have eternal life and that’s what Christ accomplished at the Cross. Sin isn’t just missing the mark, it is that but not just that, it is a lack of something and that something is divine grace. Adam and Eve lacked (as we do when we are born) divine grace which Trinitarian baptism infused into our souls. Their souls were darkened but not totally depraved and their ability to “choose” still permeated their soul after the fall. So to start with a false assumption always leaves one with a false conclusion.