please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[SemperReformada]

Those who are in the flesh do not “run from the light without exception”. Though our fallen condition prevents us from coming to the light, we still desire it. This is the element of of Total Depravity that misses the mark.

Your above statement is ambiguous as is 99% of the posts in this thread. So I should fit right in .

Do you believe those who are inthe flesh (ie. in their fallen condition) can desire the light (I assume you mean God when you say “the light”) in and of their own accord, completely unaided by God’s grace? If you do, you believe something your church doesn’t teach.

If you believe God’s grace is necessary you have no reason to say “Total Depravity misses the mark” because both your church and reformed theology believe that God’s grace is a necessary condition. Unaided by God’s grace man can not will the smallest supernatural good.

 

[guanophore]

Prevenient grace is simply ressitable grace in contrast to Irresistible grace in the “I” of the Tulip.

Well, there is the problem. What point would there be in God pouring out “resistable grace”? If God already has in mind those He will save, and those to whom He has chosen not to extend saving grace, does not prevenient grace then become useless?

The Apostles taught that mankind was created with the innate ability to choose between good and evil. This ability was wounded in the Fall, so that man still desires to choose the good, but without grace, is incapable of doing so.

Prevenient grace (resistible) defined as follows by “Wesley’s Order of Salvation”:

“Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as “Prevenient Grace.” Prevenient Grace doesn’t save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us WANT to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.”

And, according to Calvin, what is the purpose of such a useless invention?

Irresistible Grace
by John Piper

The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible…More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved.

I think the flaw in this is the notion that man’s rebellion somehow can nullify the omnipotence of His grace. God’s grace is still aver to overcome the rebellion of the heart, even if some refuse to allow it. This is part of God’s sovereign plan. Some people are permitted by God to consider themselves unworthy of eternal life.

If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace.

To the extent that it is said that the grace of God is completely and totally able to overcome the rebellion of the human heart, bringing us to perfection in Christ, this is true. However, a man must choose this in order for it to be efficacious for himself.

If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.

This is the part of “total” that misses the mark. Being dead in sins does not mean that we cannot long for and desire good. God gives us sufficient grace to come to him. The individual may not avail himself of that grace to overcome all rebellion, however, As we can see from the parable of the seeds/soils, fifty percent of the seeds that sprout are then lost.

I am very glad to see you reading and studying your faith 2nd. It seems clear that you are giving this thread a lot of research. I am proud of you for that.

 

[guanophore]

Brother,

It’s important for our conversation to understand that you believe in resistible grace and not irressible grace. Are we in agreement?

Sure.

I think where we are getting hung up is on the element of “effectual”. From the point of view of the Apostles, God’s grace is no less “effectual” for those who refuse it. The choice of the individual to abandon the grace of God at work in them does not mean God’s grace of itself, lacks sufficiency.

I think the problem here is focusing on the wrong element. It is the individual who fails to effect God’s will, by refusing the free gift. God gives sufficient grace to all in order that they be able to choose the good. Some choose not to avail themselves of this gift. This does not make the gift itself insufficient.

 

[guanophore]

I thought you guys wanted to crush the TULIP?

There you go again, confusing the expression of one Catholic to represent all Catholics, or even Catholic faith. What is it with that?

 

[guanophore]

On these issues, you are either a TULIP or a Daisy. There is no other flower that you can be.

solochristo.net/daisy_vs_tulip.php

Such an expression is severely narrow minded. I can understand how this could happen, as you seem to have no experience with Eastern Catholic thought. I don’t even think this is a true statement from the point of view of Western theology!

What would happen of you were just willing to explore different points of view, without pidgeonholing them in advance? I notice you never did respond to my post, indicating why I did not fall into either one. Perhaps because I have already been disqualified from an opinion?

 

[guanophore]

God knows all things, so it is impossible for God to learn new things.

Wonder what it means when it say “He learned obedience from the things He suffered”?

 As I wrote before, the origin of evil is a paradox which both Catholic theology and Protestant theology can only leave as a mystery.

Yet, you don’t allow a person to do this with the doctrine of predestination. You want to force someone to either be a “tulip” or a “daisy”, and disallow living in a mystery. How come you are allowed to do that with the nature of evil, but others are not permitted to do it with predestination?

The more we are able to see God and what He does, the greater our affection will grow for Him.

You must be speaking here only of the Elect.

 

[guanophore]

I have affirmed earlier that Calvin and Calvinism does not teach that God created some men for Hell, nor do I hold to such a notion.

Perhaps you can help those of us that don’t understand? It seems to me that, if God does not extend saving grace to all, that He has decided that He will, by witholding this free gift, He will predestine them to hell. They are destined there by virtue of the fall, and the only thing that can divert them is His grace, which, if He witholds it results in hell.

It has been suggested that God's grace is ineffectual in certainly securing all souls to be there despite his desire and creating of them for Heaven, even bemoaning the utter loss of those souls he would otherwise have to be there,

Man’s refusal to accept the gift does not change the nature of the gift. It only affects the way the gift affects oneself. In such cases, men reject the purpose of God for themselves (to be saved).

I would not call God’s grief over this loss “bemoaning”. This makes it sound like whining!.

Jesus was genuinely grieved that His people rejected them. “How I would have gathered you…but you refused”.

since he also declares that some will not be there. For if some of whom such a god created for Heaven are ripped by evil from what he designed, how can it at all be claimed that any soul will certainly be in Heaven or that there will even securely be a Heaven at all, since at best it will fall far short of his plans of what Heaven ought to be and be contingent upon whatever the power of evil in opposition allows, which, being evil, would have none of it?

Sorry I am not able to follow this point.

 

[guanophore]

The “he” in reference is “man”.

Exactly, I think we are in agreement on this as well, but in Christianity there’s the Christ quotient - the magintude of the quality of desire and fellowship resulting in perfect harmony of holiness and peace, only accomplished through sacrifice and propitiation. That is, as fallen creatures our desire for God is insufficently a holy desire for God. We are “restless”, but not toward what God requires, only toward what we’ve lost and need. We see we are naked, but don’t know how to properly clothe ourselves, which only God’s grace and Christ’s propitiation accomplishes.

It goes beyond just seeing oneself as naked, though. within us is created the desire to have fellowship with our creator. This created desire is not “uncreated” as a result of the fall. We still desire to live, move, and have our being in Him.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure. Maybe you might want to read this paper by Spoul?

I read a lot of Sproul. I am asking you to defend your assertions, using the documents you are citing.

Regeneration Precedes Faith

By R. C. Sproul

One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: “Regeneration Precedes Faith.”

These words were a shock to my system.

As well they should have been a shock. Such a modern innovation is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

“Faith - rebirth -justification.”… click below to read the rest of the work by Spoul

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

Well, Sproul was clearly misled from the beginning. The act of faith is explained by Jesus to be the “work of God”. It is His answer to the question “what should we be doing, to do the works of God”? Now, since we know that man cannot, of himself, do anything to pleas God, we know that grace must kindle this act of faith. Therefor, the order is grace>faith>rebirth> justification.

It is when Grace inspired faith in ourselves mixes with His free gift that we are justified. This faith is under our control, and it is our obedience of faith to place it in God.

 

[guanophore]

I completely agree that a thorough discussion of Original Sin (and perhaps also where each human soul comes from) and how Catholics and Reformers view this doctrine differently would be most helpful to a framework of better understanding the where and why of Catholic disagreements with TULIP. Most Calvinists, including myself, also hold to what is described as covenant theology or federalism, which view the first Adam as the federal head of the human race (Romans 5:12-21), “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned” (v.12, NAB)
“Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” (Wikipedia quote from Original Sin, taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Calvinists disagree, and find that man himself is radically corrupt.

I would strongly urge you not to try to understand Catholic Theology from Wikipedia. While you will find some useful info there, many errors also exist.

The Catechism does, indeed, not impute the personal guilt of Adam to the whole human race, just the consequences of it.

This does NOT mean that the man not “radically corrupt”. In fact, the Fall has made it impossible for man, in his corrupted (as the Latins like to say “wounded” ) state to respond to God’s call. Man is also incapable of the holiness for which he was created. I am not sure what it is that you think Cathlolics and Calvanists disagree upon?

“The notion of original sin as interpreted by Augustine of Hippo was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.” (also from Wikipedia, Original Sin)

None of us are guilty of Adam’s sin. It was his own personal sin, and none of us have committed it. We are still, at conception in a state of sin (original sin) . Personal sins then quickly follow, since we are unable to control the sin nature without grace.

 

[guanophore]

Your above statement is ambiguous as is 99% of the posts in this thread. So I should fit right in :D.

Do you believe those who are inthe flesh (ie. in their fallen condition) can desire the light (I assume you mean God when you say “the light”) in and of their own accord, completely unaided by God’s grace? If you do, you believe something your church doesn’t teach.

Yes. Please show me where the Church does not teach this.

If you believe God’s grace is necessary you have no reason to say “Total Depravity misses the mark” because both your church and reformed theology believe that God’s grace is a necessary condition. Unaided by God’s grace man can not will the smallest supernatural good.

I think there is a distinct difference between desiring the good, and the ability to acquire it.

God created mankind with the inherint desire to be in right relationship with Him. this desire was not “uncreated” in the Fall.

 

[SemperReformada]

Yes. Please show me where the Church does not teach this.

From the Cocuncil of Orange:

Canons 4-8
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).

I think there is a distinct difference between desiring the good, and the ability to acquire it.

God created mankind with the inherint desire to be in right relationship with Him. this desire was not “uncreated” in the Fall.

I think the desire to be with God was destroyed in the fall. Left to our own means I do not believe anyone would “choose” God.

It seems to me that the Council of Orange as well as the Council of Trent are pretty clear that we will not choose good (supernatural good) if we are left to our own devices or means. Our inability to come to God on our own is because of the wound inflicted because of the fall.

I think the main difference between reformed theology and Catholic theology, at least in regards to total depravity or total inability, lays in what grace is and how grace works but it appears certain that both systems see man as being totally inable to come to God by his own choice.

 

[SemperReformada]

This does NOT mean that the man not “radically corrupt”. In fact, the Fall has made it impossible for man, in his corrupted (as the Latins like to say “wounded” ) state to respond to God’s call. Man is also incapable of the holiness for which he was created. I am not sure what it is that you think Cathlolics and Calvanists disagree upon?

Guanaphore,

In your response to me it sounds like you believe fallen man can of his own accord come to God but in the above quote it sounds like you do not believe fallen man can come to God independent of God’s grace.

I am terribly confused by your posts.

 

[theogrit]

Perhaps you can help those of us that don’t understand? It seems to me that, if God does not extend saving grace to all, that He has decided that He will, by witholding this free gift, He will predestine them to hell. They are destined there by virtue of the fall, and the only thing that can divert them is His grace, which, if He witholds it results in hell.

Hmmm… I’ve posted several times trying to facilitate the understanding and I’m happy to continue. Though I’m appreciative of readings elsewhere, or wherever insight might be found, I don’t usually like to post extensive writings of others or links to their writings in facilitating conversations which are not there but here; however I don’t seem to be getting my point across, so perhaps a quote or two from others may help?
“Does God merely permit sin, or did He decree to permit it? Some contend that God simply permitted it as though He could do nothing about it. However, God is on the throne; and whatever takes place in providence occurs by the determinate counsel of God. The death of the Lord Jesus Christ leads one to that conclusion. It cannot be denied that God willed the death of His Son by the hands of wicked men. God was not passive in that. There is what is known as mere permission, but it will not stand the test of Scripture. Therefore, distinction must be made between God merely permitting something and determining in His purpose to permit it.”
“God’s decree to act is not the act itself. God’s will of purpose and His will of command differ.”
“God does not decree actions that are sinful as sin. Decreeing actions as sinful is not the same as decreeing them for the sake of the sinfulness of the actions. God wills to permit sin because He does permit it. No one can say that God does what He does not will to do. To say that sin exists when God did not will it to exist would be a denial of the sovereignty of God.”
“God did not make man to damn him. He is not the chargeable cause of the loss of the lost.” - from, “GOD’S ETERNAL DECREE” by W. E. Best

And I completely agree about Wikipedia, btw, especially on theological issues. There are grievous errors in it’s presentaions of both Catholic and Calvinistic doctrine. I had tried to ammend my previous post to include such a caution as well, but alas, I had expired the time allowed for editing.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

God knows all things, so it is impossible for God to learn new things. There are no surprises with God. The origin of evil goes back before the fall of Adam and Eve. I would start with the creation of Lucifer. As I wrote before, the origin of evil is a paradox which both Catholic theology and Protestant theology can only leave as a mystery. We know God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Whatever God does is infinitely wise, perfect, and glorious. The more we are able to see God and what He does, the greater our affection will grow for Him.

In other words, the fall of man was God’s plan in your opinion.

Given this reality, why does God blame the non elect for playing the role he created them to play?

 

[guanophore]

Council of Orange:

Originally Posted by From the Cocuncil of Orange
Canons 4-8
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit .

Sorry but I cannot see where this says that we do not, after the Fall, still desire communion with God.
Council of Orange:

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles

I can’t see that this addresses the created desire for fellowship with God, either.
Council of Orange:

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

This CANON actually proves MY point, that it is possible for man to long for God in all these things, but is unable to accomplish them without grace.
Council of Orange:

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

It seems that you and I are talking apples and oranges. I am talking about the innate condition of man that longs to be with God, and you are posting about will and grace. I never claimed that man could do anything to fulfill his longing for God, apart from grace. I am just saying that the created need for fellowship with Him did not disappear after the fall.
"Council of Orange:

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).

Again this is about prevenient or drawing grace, without which the longing God created in us cannot come to fruition. I can only conclude that you did not understand what I was trying to say.

I think the desire to be with God was destroyed in the fall. Left to our own means I do not believe anyone would “choose” God.

This thinking contradicts the Apostolic Teachings. God created us for Himself, and we did not have this “uncreated” in us because of the Fall. However, we are in agreemnt that we cannot get the longing fulfilled without grace.

 It seems to me that the Council of Orange as well as the Council of Trent are pretty clear that we will not choose good (supernatural good) if we are left to our own devices or means.

No, and I was not claiming that anyone could. I stated that we are created with a motivation to seek Him. The motivation will not result in finding Him without grace.

 Our inability to come to God on our own is because of the wound inflicted because of the fall.

Glad we are in agreement on this.

the yearning to come to Him, however, was not removed in the Fall.

I think the main difference between reformed theology and Catholic theology, at least in regards to total depravity or total inability, lays in what grace is and how grace works but it appears certain that both systems see man as being totally inable to come to God by his own choice.

Yes. The main difference I see is that Calvanists believe we are regenerated by God apart from our will.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Guanaphore,

In your response to me it sounds like you believe fallen man can of his own accord come to God but in the above quote it sounds like you do not believe fallen man can come to God independent of God’s grace.

I am terribly confused by your posts.

The confusion is that Catholics believe ALL men are called by God’s grace.

We can’t do it without him, but fallen man, ALL MEN, is capable thanks to the blood of Jesus, which leads us to justification and life.

 

[guanophore]

Guanaphore,

In your response to me it sounds like you believe fallen man can of his own accord come to God but in the above quote it sounds like you do not believe fallen man can come to God independent of God’s grace.

I am terribly confused by your posts.

Yes, I think you are confused, because I am not saying that man can come to God of his own accord. I am saying that God created us to be in fellowship with Him, and the desire for this was not “uncreated” through the Fall. Let me give an example:

Act 17:22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Act 17:27 ** that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.** Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,
Act 17:28 for "‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, "‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
Act 17:29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

Paul addresses the Pagans in the Aeropagus, pointing out that mankind is created with a desire to seek Himself. This does not mean that man is ABLE to find God, or to reach Him apart from grace. It is only when the HS kindles faith within us that we are able to meet with God’s grace, and thus respond to His call. The rest of the time, we are “feeling their way”. this phrase describes a person who is blind, in the dark, with his hands out trying to find what is in front of his face!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Was the sin of Adam a surprise to God, or was it part of his plan?

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
God knows all things, so it is impossible for God to learn new things. There are no surprises with God. The origin of evil goes back before the fall of Adam and Eve. I would start with the creation of Lucifer. As I wrote before, the origin of evil is a paradox which both Catholic theology and Protestant theology can only leave as a mystery. We know God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Whatever God does is infinitely wise, perfect, and glorious. The more we are able to see God and what He does, the greater our affection will grow for Him.

In other words, the fall of man was God’s plan in your opinion.

Given this reality, why does God blame the non elect for playing the role he created them to play?

Hey Brother

Before we can continue down this road, please first confirm what the Catholic Catechism speaks about the origin of evil. According to official Catholic theology, was God really surprised by the fall of Adam and Eve? After you give me the official Catholic position, we can continue down this road.

 

[2nd_Adam]

God does not withold His grace even from those who seek him without a pure heart. While we were yet sinners, He died for us.

As a result of the Fall, we are not able to seek Him with a "pure "heart, but we seek Him nonetheless with our impure heart. As He promised, to the one that has (response to grace) more is given.

Those who are in the flesh do not “run from the light without exception”. Though our fallen condition prevents us from coming to the light, we still desire it. This is the element of of Total Depravity that misses the mark.

I think you have to explain the initial grace in which causes fallen men to seek God.

Romans 3

No One Is Righteous

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.