Natural state of man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggle

Guest
I am not sure if this belongs in this forum or not, but I will try here first!

I know that the reformers preached of the absolute and total depravity of man. However, this is not the Catholic teaching and I believe that since man is made in the image of God he is basically good with the stain of original sin. Can someone out there help me to back up my argument to my protestant friends?

I extend my most heartfelt thanks on this topic!
 
The “total depravity” idea is just plain silly – it means that we’re not worth saving. That means that salvation is a pointless gift for God to give us, as we add nothing of value to Him. In my Bible, Christ’s Passion was meaningful. If total depravity is correct, I can’t see how Christ’s Passion can be anything other than meaningless. But that’s just me.

If you haven’t read A Tiptoe Through A Tulip yet, I recommend you do so. This will help you understand what you’re arguing against and give you some ideas as to where to go with your response.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Thanks for the link. I read it and thought it was helpful, but I still feel confused. What really is the difference between what Calvin taught and what Catholics believe? Also, doesn’t this tie in a little bit with Luther’s statement that we are just a pile of dung covered with snow?

Thanks!
 
What really is the difference between what Calvin taught and what Catholics believe?
Click to expand...
It’s causal. Calvin believes that the decree causes or ordains people to sin; Catholics believe that actual sin is solely caused by the person. Since we are only worthy of punishment for actual sin, damnation is only caused by the acts of the person. The doctrine of Limbo (or what is rather inaptly called the lightest form of damnation by Augustine) was precisely that if someone never committed actual sin, the person would not be punished, but rather disposed somewhere like Abraham’s bosom in the Old Testament. Calvin believed that actual sin was rendered inevitable by God’s decree and permission of Adam’s fall, while Catholics like St. Augustine and St. Thomas always affirmed that only actual sin merited punishment (original sin could only justify not providing the additional gift of grace, but not actual punishment). Those souls in Limbo would still have an existence that was not unpleasant, having such natural goods as appropriate and the absence of suffering, but with no increase in communion with God.
Also, doesn’t this tie in a little bit with Luther’s statement that we are just a pile of dung covered with snow?
Click to expand...
No. The possibility of evil is not the same thing as evil itself. Even though we might fall away from God absent grace, there is nothing in us that forces us to do so. Rather, as Augustine and Thomas affirmed, we are the sole source of our own evil.
 
UGh, I do not think I am getting it. What exactly did original sin do? Did it just allow for the possibility of evil? I thought that we were made in the image of God and therefore good, but that original sin entered the world and causes us to stray towards evil. However, with the grace of God, we can overcome this temptation and do/be “good”. This seems in line with what Calvin taught, but I know I am missing something.
 
CCC:
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

What is “concupiscence” and do we still have it?
1426…the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life.

So we have a wounded nature which predisposes us to sin, but we ARE NOT totally depraved. We are still intrinsically good, but we have a tendency to sin – this is why the song Amazing Grace is dangerously theologically vague when it says, “…saved a WRETCH like me.” We are not wreched, intrinsically. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore have an intrinsic dignity which cannot be removed. We do, however, make ourselves wreched through our actions, which are now inclined to sin (though we can never remove the image of God in us, and therefore must remain inherrently good).

In Calvinistic thought, if I’m correct (which I might not be), there is nothing we can do which is good. We are totally depraved, and “all our works are as filthy rags”. We are totally depraved, and are therefore not intrinsically good. In Catholic theology, we ARE intrinsically good, but we are sinners through our own fault. In Catholic thought, there is something in us worth saving. In Calvinistic thought, there is absolutely nothing good in us.

The grace of God within us is what empowers us to overcome our natural inclination to sin, and is available to all. In Calvinistic thought, God withholds grace from those who are not among “the elect” and can rightly be said to be predestined to be damned (double predestination). In fact, if I understand correctly, there is no free will in Calvinistic thought, and the damned can do nothing to escape their fate since Christ did not die for them and therefore they can never receive the mercy of God.

In Catholic thought, Christ died for all (though not all come to Him). All have the mercy and grace of God available, though not all choose to avail themselves of it. Free will is what separates the saved from the damned, and not the “absolute sovereignty of God” which damns souls through no choice of their own.

Make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
What exactly did original sin do? Did it just allow for the possibility of evil?
Click to expand...
No, the possibility of evil comes from two conditions (1) being created from nothing, and (2) not having personally exercised one’s will in the direction of God’s grace. That is why Adam and the fallen angels sinned, despite being created upright.
I thought that we were made in the image of God and therefore good, but that original sin entered the world and causes us to stray towards evil. However, with the grace of God, we can overcome this temptation and do/be “good”.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t cause us to sin. It provides an occasion for sin because we don’t recognize that we are damaged. Think of walking around in the dark. If you persist in trying to walk around despite your inability to see and your ignorance of what it in the room around you, then you are likely to stumble. Basically, we mistakenly view what are goods ordered to another purpose as ends in themselves. Thus, we fear for our lives and we try to attain immortality through our own efforts, not recognizing our limitations. It is a cause of the sin only insofar as we choose to make it one.

To use a sports analogy, it’s like trying to play injured. If you insist on trying to do what you clearly cannot do, then you are likely not only to fail at what you are attempting but to inflict even more injury that will reduce your capacity further. But the odds that you will eventually (wrongly) decide to do something that you oughtn’t are quite high, because the irrational fears and passions entangled with mortality make it tempting to try to soothe them as if they were authentic. In the long term, this situation is hopeless without a physician.
 
The natural state of man, the way God created us, is perfect. We are perfect if we choose to be perfect. But we didn’t and we don’t. By original sin, the sin both committed by Adam and every man (in a more metaphorical, not literal sense) since him, we have been made imperfect. We can chose evil and this is evident by our orginal sin. This is why Baptism is said to “remove original sin.” Because we can see the light, referring to the previous poster. If we hold true to the faith, we can overcome our sinfulness. Jesus is the light and is our way out of original sin. There is no other way.

There are, in fact, men and women who do lead “perfect” lives. Lives that denouce sin altogether and which depend on God for everything. Mother Theresea is a good example. I’m not saying that she never sinned, but by her actions, she showed what a human being is capable of.

It is a sin of omisison to state that God understands if we fail because we aren’t perfect. BAH! WE ARE MADE PERFECT AND BY THE GRACE OF GOD WE CAN BE!

So there.

Natural state of man is absolutely perfect in the way God intended us to be.
 
Catholic teaching is this: Man (basically Adam and Eve) was created good, that is, perfect in the human sense, without sin or flaw. Our first parents, as a total unmerited gift from God, were also given what are called preternatural gifts, that is, they had perfect control over their appetites and passions, had infused knowledge of everything they needed or wanted to know, and were not subject to illness or natural death (presumably, they could have been injured or been killed, but in Paradise they were kept from that). Had they not sinned, when they had reached the end of their earthly lives, God would have taken them to heaven, body and soul (sound like someone we know?).

These preternatural gifts, as was mentioned, were gifts from God. Even though they had all these gifts, they still had free will, the misuse of which was how they sinned and fell. When they fell, they (and we) not only lost sanctifying grace (or, in Christian terms, justification), we all lost these preternatural gifts. Original sin, which is usually thought of something inflicted on us, is actually a lack of these graces which God added on to our natural state.

When we receive baptism in faith, we are restored to sanctifying grace, but we do not recieve the preternatural gifts. We can develop them as virtues when we are given graces by God (through the sacraments, for example), but it is a struggle. The struggle comes from what is called concupisence (similar to what Protestants call the sin nature), sort of a scar left over from our fallen nature that fights against our good intentions. Temptations from the outside of us add to the difficulty, but primarily it is concupisence we struggle against, and with St. Paul we lament:“The good I want to do, I do not do, and the evil I do not want to do, I do.”

So to answer your question, the nature of man was created good; it is fallen, but through Christ is restored through faith, baptism, and obedience to the end. We fight against concupisence, but God in his mercy will give us all the grace we need to overcome, just for the asking.

Hope that helps. 🙂
 
RyanL said:
The “total depravity” idea is just plain silly – it means that we’re not worth saving.
Click to expand...
Is that so terribly wrong an idea? I don’t think God was obligated (in any economic sense) to save us.
That means that salvation is a pointless gift for God to give us, as we add nothing of value to Him.
Click to expand...
To think that we could add value to God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords! A Calvinist would respond (and I’d be inclined to agree, insofar as it’s consistent with the Catholic faith) that the value God receives in saving us is the glorification of His grace, because though we were totally depraved, he saved us anyway.
In my Bible, Christ’s Passion was meaningful. If total depravity is correct, I can’t see how Christ’s Passion can be anything other than meaningless. But that’s just me.
Click to expand...
If by “meaningless” you mean “utterly merciful.” We needn’t have intrinsic value to God for Christ’s sacrifice to be meaningful; His sacrifice is meaningful because it proclaims the justice and mercy and love of God for all eternity.
If you haven’t read A Tiptoe Through A Tulip yet, I recommend you do so. This will help you understand what you’re arguing against and give you some ideas as to where to go with your response.
Click to expand...
The description Akin gives of an interpretation of “Total Depravity” that is consistent with the Catholic faith is the interpretation that I always held, even as a calvinist prior to my conversion to the Church. (As far as I can tell, it’s also the position held by such popular Calvinist authors as John Piper, as well.)

Jeremy
 
I am seeing it more clearly now thanks to these posts. It seems you are putting into words what I believe, but have been unable to articulate/defend. I appreciate this.

When we receive baptism in faith, we are restored to sanctifying grace, but we do not recieve the preternatural gifts. We can develop them as virtues when we are given graces by God (through the sacraments, for example), but it is a struggle. The struggle comes from what is called concupisence (similar to what Protestants call the sin nature), sort of a scar left over from our fallen nature that fights against our good intentions. Temptations from the outside of us add to the difficulty, but primarily it is concupisence we struggle against, and with St. Paul we lament:"The good I want to do, I do not do, and the evil I do not want to do, I do
as posted by Fidelis

This is a difference between Catholics and Protestants - right? We believe we are changed at baptism, but Luther taught we were just “covered over”. Am I correct?
 
Struggle said:
I am seeing it more clearly now thanks to these posts. It seems you are putting into words what I believe, but have been unable to articulate/defend. I appreciate this.

This is a difference between Catholics and Protestants - right? We believe we are changed at baptism, but Luther taught we were just “covered over”. Am I correct?
Click to expand...
That is correct. Catholics believe the grace necessary for salvation is infused, that is, we are truly made righteous. Luther (and classical Protestantism) believe grace is imputed, that God only *sees us *as righteous.

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend the short but informative *Catholic Answers *tract:

Grace: What It Is & What it Does
catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp
 
So, can we talk about this difference between infused and imputed rightousness now? I love this discussion! I am learning so much. Should I open a new thread?
 
Struggle said:
So, can we talk about this difference between infused and imputed rightousness now? I love this discussion! I am learning so much. Should I open a new thread?
Click to expand...
Might be a good idea, since it’s a whole 'nother topic.
 
Struggle said:
So, can we talk about this difference between infused and imputed rightousness now? I love this discussion! I am learning so much. Should I open a new thread?
Click to expand...
Note also that this difference is a major reason why Protestants rejected the historical Christian idea of post-death purification (purgatory).

Jeremy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top