Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[guanophore]

If that’s the case, and I think you are correct, you as a Catholic shouldn’t have much problem with total depravity or maybe better stated as you pointed out as total inability.

The problem is that Calvin’s concept of TD denies the doctrine of free will taught by Jesus and the Apostles. This doctrine teaches that we are unable to respond to God’s call to be saved. It goes beyond the total inability to save ourselves, to total inability to respond to the grace that has been poured out calling us to salvation.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I misunderstood you. I only realized this after I had posted (I think I was misled by the word “morally” I thought you were asking me if we could merit grace which I don’t believe). But anyways, total depravity is more than that it states that we cannot do good whatsoever apart from grace. Please let me quote part of an article I found that sums up my objections to total depravity:

The first element of John Calvin’s classic TULIP summary is the idea of total depravity. The proposal includes the following; human rebellion against God is total, and apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God; in this total rebellion everything humanity does is sin; furthermore, man’s inability to desist from this rebellion, to submit to God and do good is total; and this rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.

Although Calvin’s innovation allegedly derives from the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, Calvin’s conclusions do not reflect real allegiance to some of Augustine’s most basic affirmations of the doctrines of creation and grace. Over and over again, Augustine insists that- as the Church has always believed- if we were as ‘totally’ depraved as Calvin alleged, then we would cease to exist altogether; this is because our very being is enjoyment of God’s great goodness.

Augustine lived over 1,000 before Calvin (so I doubt Augustine commented on Calvinism).

And here are the words of St. Augustine (a view that although human nature was wounded through original sin it was not totally depraved):

"And it was made clear to me that all things are good even if they are corrupted…all that is corrupted is thereby deprived of good. But if they are deprived of all good, they will cease to be… if they are deprived of all good, they will cease to exist. So long as they are, therefore, they are good. Therefore, whatsoever is, is good. For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all… For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its nature cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. And even if the corruption is not arrested, it still does not cease having some good of which it cannot be further deprived. And if the corruption comes to be total and entire, there is no good left because it is no longer an entity at all. Wherefore corruption cannot consume the good without also consuming the thing itself.

vocatum.blogspot.com/2008/05/augustines-problem-with-total-depravity.html

what you’re talking about is something entirely distinct from total depravity. C.S. Lewis once said that evil is merely corrupted goodness; and that evil is not a thing unto itself.

Calvin only addressed the result, and was rigorous in avoiding sophistic speculation. The idea that we are all sinners and cannot perform as god wants us too without his imputation of grace is very well ingrained in the bible. There is plenty of support for the idea that mankind is wholly depraved apart from divine grace (especially in Isaiah). Therefore, what you’re advocating here is a form of semi-pelagianism (something the CC to my knowledge does not support).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The problem is that Calvin’s concept of TD denies the doctrine of free will taught by Jesus and the Apostles. This doctrine teaches that we are unable to respond to God’s call to be saved. It goes beyond the total inability to save ourselves, to total inability to respond to the grace that has been poured out calling us to salvation.

I think you jumped in here a little late. If you begin a few pages back and read forward you’ll learn quite a bit about real theology (apart from popular misconceptions).

 

[josie_L]

Josie,

Sorry to have confused you.

Other than some pretty strong language in the above section of your post, what is objectionable to you?

I would think you would only object to maybe one or two statements.

I object to the fact that we would have no free will. And I object to the fact that we are depraved; I believe that there is still good remaining in our nature even after our fall.

 

[PRmerger]

The idea that we are all sinners and cannot perform as god wants us too without his imputation of grace is very well ingrained in the bible.

Must.

Not.

Correct.

Grammar…AAARRRGGGH!! I must! I can’t help it. I’m too depraved!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis, I don’t get you. I’m not trying to be mean here I’m only trying to point out differences in our theology (although to an extent they are similar they are not so similar that these differences are of no consequence). And what do you mean by “irony”?

how did you possibly deduce my post was mean? I feel like I’m in a Dali painting right now

 

[josie_L]

Augustine lived over 1,000 before Calvin (so I doubt Augustine commented on Calvinism).

what you’re talking about is something entirely distinct from total depravity. C.S. Lewis once said that evil is merely corrupted goodness; and that evil is not a thing unto itself.

Calvin only addressed the result, and was rigorous in avoiding sophistic speculation. The idea that we are all sinners and cannot perform as god wants us too without his imputation of grace is very well ingrained in the bible. There is plenty of support for the idea that mankind is wholly depraved apart from divine grace (especially in Isaiah). Therefore, what you’re advocating here is a form of semi-pelagianism (something the CC to my knowledge does not support).

No, I am not advocating a form of semi-pelagianism. And I know that we are all sinners but the concept of total depravity states we can do nothing good (were there not people who strived in their hearts to be good in the O.T.) it is in my opinion the polar opposite to pelagianism. In other words it is an extreme view. Did you read the whole article? And don’t be silly, obviously St. Augustine did not know Calvin but he wrote of things that set themselves against what the reformer wrote concerning the effects of original sin.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, I am not advocating a form of semi-pelagianism. And I know that we are all sinners but the concept of total depravity states we can do nothing good (were there not people who strived in their hearts to be good in the O.T.) it is in my opinion the polar opposite to pelagianism. In other words it is an extreme view. Did you read the whole article? And don’t be silly, obviously St. Augustine did not know Calvin but he wrote of things that set themselves against what the reformer wrote concerning the effects of original sin.

first you can’t lump all the reformers in one batch. Certainly Luther was markedly different than Calvin (and probably much closer to Catholic doctrine). However, the idea is without faith nothing is pleasing to god (even if it ones behavior seems good and altruistic in a worldly sense). This is the distinction. Neither Calvin nor any other reformer would say man cannot do good in the eyes of society; they would merely say we are incapable of good in the eyes of god. Inability is probably a better word than depravity (and indeed many reformed theologians advocate replacing depravity with inability, since it more accurately depicts their theology).

 

[josie_L]

how did you possibly deduce my post was mean? I feel like I’m in a Dali painting right now

Happy July 4th, Francis. :hug3:

I didn’t say it was mean per se albeit it was rather sarcastic. Can I understand why you said “I love irony. . .”

P.S. I like Dali.

 

[josie_L]

first you can’t lump all the reformers in one batch. Certainly Luther was markedly different than Calvin (and probably much closer to Catholic doctrine). However, the idea is without faith nothing is pleasing to god (even if it ones behavior seems good and altruistic in a worldly sense). This is the distinction. Neither Calvin nor any other reformer would say man cannot do good in the eyes of society; they would merely say we are incapable of good in the eyes of god. Inability is probably a better word than depravity (and indeed many reformed theologians advocate replacing depravity with inability, since it more accurately depicts their theology).

Total depravity/inability deprives man of his free will and states we are corrupted to the point that we are sin-enslaved. I do not agree with this. And if Calvin stated that we can do no good in the eyes of God than what of all the people that existed before Christ, what would Calvin have said about them? Did they all go to Hell because they could not do good (as described in the N.T.) according to God?

 

[SyCarl]

No, I am not advocating a form of semi-pelagianism. And I know that we are all sinners but the concept of total depravity states we can do nothing good (were there not people who strived in their hearts to be good in the O.T.) it is in my opinion the polar opposite to pelagianism. In other words it is an extreme view. Did you read the whole article? And don’t be silly, obviously St. Augustine did not know Calvin but he wrote of things that set themselves against what the reformer wrote concerning the effects of original sin.

Augustine’s view appears very close to that of total depravity.

It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that “all are forced into sin,” as if they were unwilling, “by the necessity of their flesh;” but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils,—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil,—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “everything which is not of faith is sin.”

Augustine (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Chapter 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.iii.vii.html?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=17#xviii.iii.vii-p5.1

 

[josie_L]

Augustine’s view appears very close to that of total depravity.

Augustine (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Chapter 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.iii.vii.html?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=17#xviii.iii.vii-p5.1

Not again. :hypno: Please read the last two pages on my thoughts about total depravity. God bless.

 

[SyCarl]

Total depravity/inability deprives man of his free will and states we are corrupted to the point that we are sin-enslaved. I do not agree with this. And if Calvin stated that we can do no good in the eyes of God than what of all the people that existed before Christ, what would Calvin have said about them? Did they all go to Hell because they could not do good (as described in the N.T.) according to God?

They were saved by faith, the same way we are. This is what Hebrews 11 tells us.

Also from the early church fathers.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; since there is none other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved; and in Him has God defined unto all men their faith, in that He has raised Him from the dead. Now without this faith, that is to say, without a belief in the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; without faith, I say, in His resurrection by which God has given assurance to all men and which no man could of course truly believe were it not for His incarnation and death; without faith, therefore, in the incarnation and death and resurrection of Christ, the Christian verity unhesitatingly declares that the ancient saints could not possibly have been cleansed from sin so as to have become holy, and justified by the grace of God. And this is true both of the saints who are mentioned in Holy Scripture, and of those also who are not indeed mentioned therein, but must yet be supposed to have existed,— either before the deluge, or in the interval between that event and the giving of the law, or in the period of the law itself,— not merely among the children of Israel, as the prophets, but even outside that nation, as for instance Job. For it was by the self-same faith in the one Mediator that the hearts of these, too, were cleansed, and there also was shed abroad in them the love of God by the Holy Ghost, who blows where He lists, not following men’s merits, but even producing these very merits Himself. For the grace of God will in no wise exist unless it be wholly free.

Augustine (On the Grace of Christ, and On Original Sin, Book 2, Chapter 28)
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

If the salvation of the world is in no other but in Christ alone, then the fathers of the Old Testament were saved by the incarnation and passion of the same Redeemer, by which we also believe and hope to be saved. For although the sacramental signs differed by reason of the times, nevertheless there was agreement in one and the same faith, because through the prophets they learned as something to come the same dispensation of Christ which we learned through the apostles as something which has been done. For there is no redemption of human captivity [to sinfulness] except in the blood of him who gave himself as a redemption for all.

Bede (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Francis Martin ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament V Acts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 49.)

He has made use of many proofs, since he knew the Jews especially questioned faith by means of a certain line of argument. For the Jews were setting forth the law and righteousness by their works, but Christians set forth faith, saying that even if someone should be guilty of ten thousand evils, by only believing in Christ he receives immediately deliverance from all of them, being deemed worthy of justification from him. Therefore, having determined this, then partly to appropriate the things that had been said before and partly to be able to show that faith appeared among all the virtuous men of old, he adds, “by faith the men of old received divine approval.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia (Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 11.1-2 Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 173.)

 

[SyCarl]

The problem is that Calvin’s concept of TD denies the doctrine of free will taught by Jesus and the Apostles. This doctrine teaches that we are unable to respond to God’s call to be saved. It goes beyond the total inability to save ourselves, to total inability to respond to the grace that has been poured out calling us to salvation.

No, Calvinism does not deny free will but that free will acts in accordance with our nature. For example if you place a plate of raw meat and a plate of straw before a hungry tiger, it will always choose the meat, not because it cannot choose the hay but because its nature as a carnivore dictates that it will use its free will to choose the meat. The Calvinist view of fallen man is the same. He acts according to his nature which will not choose to please God.

 

[PRmerger]

However, the idea is without faith nothing is pleasing to god (even if it ones behavior seems good and altruistic in a worldly sense)

It would seem that the Good Samaritan’s behavior was pleasing to God, and he had no faith yet in Christ.

 

[authenticity]

I don’t dispute that under it’s own revised definition of infallibility the Galileo affair cannot be said to contravene the doctrine of infallibility. However, my contention is that the CC did constructively contravene the doctrine by any reasonably objective standard. Indeed many Catholics were concerned that by dogmatically defining the doctrine in Vatican I it logically undermined the concept of infallibility (since it at least gives the aura of a post hoc attempt to harmonize its claim of infallibility with some of its more controversial actions throughout history).

Like with all the other councils, the Vatican I was a response to claims against the Church and the eternal Truth.

Indeed prior to Vatican I papal infallibility (and infallibility of “the church”) was thought to be much more broad when compared to the Vatican I framework. Here’s some quotes from ancient writers on the subject:

Actually, it’s quite specific and is almost the same as what Vatican I laid out. In the first quote, he is talking about trying cases regarding faith. In the second, he is talking about the holy apostolic tradition. This is exactly what Vatican I re-affirmed.

In 1870 the requirement that the pope must be speaking ex cathedra in order to invoke infallibility was promulgated. While ancient theologians did mention the term, there was no dogmatic framework to invoke infallibility prior to Vatican I (and indeed you will find no formal ritual for invoking infallibility prior to 1870). In other words the claims of the CC in this regard cannot be substantiated.

The dogmatic framework is in the confession of faith which starts with Jesus’ statements about Peter’s Church and was clarified over and over throughout the Church’s history. The substance of the Tradition hasn’t changed. In that regard, the Pope and Church are infallible based on the assertion that this Tradition was not created by men.

I would say even measuring what might be fairly viewed as “constructive” invocations of infallibility against Vatican I is an inaccurate measure (since it allows the church the convenience of defining doctrine post hoc and subjectively); and what should really matter is whether or not Christendom viewed certain church actions as carrying the “force of infallibility” when those events actually occurred (since the doctrine was not dogmatically defined prior to 1870). In other words, taking the Galileo affair as an example, is it reasonable to think church authorities or the sitting pope (or even the average Catholic who was aware of the controversy) thought for a moment the church lacked infallible authority when they prosecuted Galileo?

I think that the real problem revolving around Galileo (excuse the pun) had nothing to do with astronomy. It had to do with Galileo defining philosophy and theology to the men that were the authority on the matter. The Pope and the Church asserted their authority. It’s no different then Dawkins trying to tell me whether there is a God or not. He’s a biologist, not a theologian. The reverse is true for a Pope claiming to be a scientist.

The ‘broader range’ of infallibility as you have defined it is inaccurate. There was no difference between art, science, politics and religion at the time. If infallibility worked in that sense, then the Pope would be perfect in all things. If people really believed that now or even then, the Pope would have painted his own Sistine Chapel. This goes back to what was promised to St. Peter. And I think that the Galileo affair helped to define exactly what that does and does not mean. To put it plainly, what does astronomy have to do with salvation?

 

[SemperReformada]

I object to the fact that we would have no free will.

Earlier you agreed that nobody can of their own will choose to follow God. PRmerger posted several quotes from Trent and Orange that said the same thing.

Before God acts on a man’s will that man is incapable of choosing God.

And I object to the fact that we are depraved; I believe that there is still good remaining in our nature even after our fall.

Well, total depravity simply says that original sin affects our whole being in it’s totality; physical, mental, moral, etc. It does not say that we are as bad as we could be or that a man before conversion is unable to exhibit what we might consider to be virtuous behaviour such as an atheist working at a soup kitchen.

As for there being good in us, again your church has the following to say at the 2nd Council of Orange:
…man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20).

The good which we do have has God as it’s author, not ourselves.

When you say there is still good in a fallen man, how would you define that good? Is the good supernaturally pleasing to God?

BTW, I have enjoyed our conversation.

 

[SemperReformada]

The problem is that Calvin’s concept of TD denies the doctrine of free will taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

How so? I think Psycarl did a good job explaining this.

Unless you believe a man can choose of his own accord and only his own accord to follow God I would think you would accept TD.

This doctrine teaches that we are unable to respond to God’s call to be saved. It goes beyond the total inability to save ourselves, to total inability to respond to the grace that has been poured out calling us to salvation.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Can you give some more information.

 

[guanophore]

No, Calvinism does not deny free will but that free will acts in accordance with our nature. For example if you place a plate of raw meat and a plate of straw before a hungry tiger, it will always choose the meat, not because it cannot choose the hay but because its nature as a carnivore dictates that it will use its free will to choose the meat. The Calvinist view of fallen man is the same. He acts according to his nature which will not choose to please God.

Yes, this makes sense to me, except that Calvin conceived of human nature in a manner that was not consistent with what Jesus and the Apostles taught. If it is not possible to choose the good, then what is the point of offering the good? One has to invalidate so many scriptures and teachings that it is overwhelming.

On the other hand,the Apostolic Teaching that what God created as human is “good” (He declared it so) but was wounded, and separated from the creator recognizes that we are unable to save ourselves, but that the part of us that is made in the image and likeness of God continues to desire the good, though we are not able to attain or maintain it of ourselves.

It would seem that the Good Samaritan’s behavior was pleasing to God, and he had no faith yet in Christ.

If we follow SyCarl’s observation here, then the Good Samaritan was acting in accordance with his nature, which was good. The text does not specify how he got that way, but since he did what was godly, then it can be presumed he is a man of faith.

 

[guanophore]

Well, total depravity simply says that original sin affects our whole being in it’s totality; physical, mental, moral, etc. It does not say that we are as bad as we could be or that a man before conversion is unable to exhibit what we might consider to be virtuous behaviour such as an atheist working at a soup kitchen.

Then, perhaps it is this doctrine in combination with other heresies that produces a skewed perception of human nature and salvation?

My understanding is that the differences are in how “sin affects”. The Apostles taught that it wounded our nature, where Calvin taught that our nature was no longer “good” as God had declared it to be at Creation.

As for there being good in us, again your church has the following to say at the 2nd Council of Orange:
…man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20).

The good which we do have has God as it’s author, not ourselves.

When you say there is still good in a fallen man, how would you define that good? Is the good supernaturally pleasing to God?

It is the created capability to relate to God, and to walk in obedience to His commandments. No, I would not say that the good is “supernaturally pleasing to God”, though I am not sure exactly what you mean by that. The fact that humans have a spiritual aspect to their nature is part of what it is to be human. It is not, in itself, “supernatural” for man to seek after and long for what is good. God created us this way.

BTW, I have enjoyed our conversation.

As have I, and the thread.