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

[guanophore]

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.

Yes (but that would be SyCarl - was that a Freudian slip)? No, the Catholic Church does not teach that a man can choose of his own accord to follow God. Man cannot do this apart from grace. However, from the discussions I have had here with extreme Calvanists, it seems that they believe that a man is born again against his will, or without action of his will (by the will of God only). What the Catholic Church teaches as prevenient or drawing grace, they consider being born again. They have maintained that one cannot respond to the grace of God without being born again, and this is not what the Apostles taught. Now, I did not attend a Calvanist seminary,and my study of it is not that thorough, so perhaps I have just accepted these ideas forwarded here by Calvanists erroneously.

My training was more in the Armenian camp,which has far more similarities to Catholic thought.

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

It is my understanding that total depravity teaches that when a person is “dead in their sins” they are unable to choose or seek for the good, because the innate desire that God placed inside persons at creation to seek Him and to serve Him is totally depraved.

If this were true, it would mean that God placed choices before man that were impossible to take, and that there is no point or reason for drawing grace at all (since man is incapable of responding) and that man cannot, as scripture states, seek after God in hopes of finding Him, because of their depraved state.

 

[SemperReformada]

Yes (but that would be SyCarl - was that a Freudian slip)?

Ooops…no offense intended to Carl.

However, from the discussions I have had here with extreme Calvanists, it seems that they believe that a man is born again against his will, or without action of his will (by the will of God only).

I only have a minute to respond before heading ot the beach but it’s unfortunate that I or any other person who claims to be reformed in their theology would have led you to believe that it’s part of our theology that a man is born again against his will.

I think we often talk past each other on these forums.

Have a happy fourth

 

[Memaw]

That Catholics do not use the term “total depravity”. Rather, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.

And after the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, He gave us those “special graces” in HIS Catholic Church with Peter, our first Pope, and now Benedict XVI, as its head, and its Doctrine and all 7 of the Sacraments that Jesus gave us. And it continues on today in the same way Jesus intended. So if one isn’t living a “SAVED” life. then it is our own fault. Jesus opened the door to Heaven for us but HE isn’t going to shove us in against our will. God Bless, Memaw

 

[guanophore]

I only have a minute to respond before heading ot the beach but it’s unfortunate that I or any other person who claims to be reformed in their theology would have led you to believe that it’s part of our theology that a man is born again against his will.

I think we often talk past each other on these forums.

Have a happy fourth

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy the day at the beach. I live on where there used to be a beach, but it is long gone.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, as SyCarl has pointed out, that they acted in accordance with their nature. They were pre-destined to be saved, so they did will to be saved, and God, in His irresistable grace saved them, so that they were then able to act in accordance with their will.

Maybe it is more a case of the human will being “irrelevant”. It comes off sounding like the saved are puppets.

Rom 9:14-18
15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

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.

actually he just mentioned trying cases (without reference to its subject matter). However, even if I grant you that it may have been a mere oversight … the fact still remains that the only way we can analyze the churches actions prior to Vatican I (with regard to the infallibility question) is by examining her actions (since no dogmatically defined doctrine existed).

For instance if a local council (or synod) promulgates a doctrine, it can only be made part of “official” church doctrine (and therefore infallible) if it’s affirmed by the pope. Many of these local synods throughout church history dealt with heresies. The Galileo affair meets all these elements (indeed the pope even appealed to his apostolic authority when formulating the papal bull affirming the conviction against Galileo).

So the only question is was infallibility restricted to matters of faith and morals prior to Vatican I; and if so did the Galileo affair meet this requirement? We could reasonably argue that any proclamation pertaining to scriptural interpretation is a matter of faith (since belief that scripture represents the word of god, and everything in it is infallible truth, is itself a matter of faith – indeed can there be a more important of faith than believing the bible represents the word of an invisible god that we cannot independently prove exists?).

However, even that argument is subjective. The church can define matters of faith any way it wishes to. So the only real way we have to discern whether or not a matter of faith was involved is to see whether or not the church treated it as a matter of faith. The only way we can answer that question in this case is to see whether the pope treated his proclamations like other infallible proclamations were treated. In every objective sense the answers to all these questions lead to the same conclusion. Pope Alexander invoked his infallibility when he issued the bull affirming the conviction of Galileo; and subsequently the church was proven wrong in its position.

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.

Galileo was punished for disobeying the churches order to not publicly advocate heliocentrism. However, his conclusion that geocentrism cannot be true (which today we know is correct) did inevitably lead to a theological conclusion. The church believed scripture affirmed the Aristotelian view of a geocentric universe (which asserted the earth stood at the center of the universe and remained stationary). This was due to their interpretation of passages like: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, and 1 Chronicles 16:30.

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?

These are fallacious analogies. Convicting a Christian of heresy was fully within the infallible powers of the pope and church. To say otherwise is IMO intellectual dishonesty. You’re right no pope I’ve ever heard of could have painted the Sistine Chapel. However, no pope ever made a proclamation appealing to his “apostolic authority” claiming he was a great artist either!

 

[SteveGC]

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.

According to this analogy, then…the man with faith will never sin, for if he did, he would be choosing NOT to please God, hence choosing against his nature. What’s the explanation for this?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The bottom line is the differences between total depravity and the Catholic view of original sin boil down to semantics. I’ve read both views, indeed a great article on this forum affirms how slight the distinctions are, so frankly this debate seems silly to me.

Whether you say original sin wounded man to the point where he will always unavoidably be a sinner (because our sin nature is measured against the holiness of god; and we can never attain divine holiness while residing in the flesh), or you say we’re totally depraved, or you prefer the term total inability … it all amounts to the same thing.

A life denying religion that scorns everything good about our human nature. When you define things like lust as evil of course you’ll convince everyone that they’re a sinner. Lust is biological, indeed we lust in order to promulgate our species (in a biological sense). Therefore, lust is both natural and necessary. When you tell everyone that greed is evil; of course everyone will be made out to be a sinner. However, greed (inherent in capitalism) is perhaps the single best idea to ever hit this planet (at least since the wheel). When you believe in ancient doctrines formulated by primitive superstitious men of course you’ll wind up with a religion that’s contrary to our nature; rather than rational virtues that use our nature to promote the greater good.

I won’t deny that Christianity contains some good virtues; but it also contains plenty of terrible virtues and ideas. Moreover, objectively speaking none of the supernatural events described in scripture actually happened. It’s just ancient stories, no more compelling than Thor or Zeus. What you guys call theology I call mythology. Fun to read, but as a rational intelligent person I know how to distinguish mythology from reality.

 

[guanophore]

According to this analogy, then…the man with faith will never sin, for if he did, he would be choosing NOT to please God, hence choosing against his nature. What’s the explanation for this?

This is, in fact. one of the greatest flaws that I see with the total depravity concept. Paul is clear in Rom. 7 that we have two natures, one that strives against God, and one that strives to serve God. According to Total Depravity, it is more black and white than what Paul describes

 

[SyCarl]

According to this analogy, then…the man with faith will never sin, for if he did, he would be choosing NOT to please God, hence choosing against his nature. What’s the explanation for this?

When we are regenerated we are freed from the slavery to sin but we are still capable of choosing it. Our nature is capable of choosing both. In my analogy it would like being an omnivore.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

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.

I will differ from many on this but I believe that previent grace is provided to all that allows them to believe. Then choosing belief we are regenerated. I am more an Arminean than a Calvinist.

 

[josie_L]

This is, in fact. one of the greatest flaws that I see with the total depravity concept. Paul is clear in Rom. 7 that we have two natures, one that strives against God, and one that strives to serve God. According to Total Depravity, it is more black and white than what Paul describes

Actually according to total depravity we have sin-enslaved wills, so we cannot choose to do good or strive to follow God.

“. . . .Simply stated, it means that due to Original Sin man cannot love God, choose anything good or do anything at all meriting salvation. It does not mean that man does not have a free will, only that his will is not capable of choosing anything good. His will, then, is limited. Man is born into Original Sin and his entire person is directed to evil.”

In a nutshell total depravity goes against the very nature of God and Man. For God who is love cannot force his creation to love Him and Man as God’s creation of love must have free will so he may choose to love “LOVE”.

“The grace of God in no way negates, either prior to or after the fall, our will which is itself a gift of God’s grace and a necessary part of our being. This gift of free will is required if we are to love God, for how can you love if you are not free? Yet, to love God is why we were created.”

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=150

 

[PRmerger]

A life denying religion that scorns everything good about our human nature. When you define things like lust as evil of course you’ll convince everyone that they’re a sinner. Lust is biological, indeed we lust in order to promulgate our species (in a biological sense). Therefore, lust is both natural and necessary. When you tell everyone that greed is evil; of course everyone will be made out to be a sinner. However, greed (inherent in capitalism) is perhaps the single best idea to ever hit this planet (at least since the wheel).

Surely you see the potential for the exploitation of man through lust and greed, Francis! When you declare “good” that which destroys our dignity and dehumanizes, you destroy humanity.

Christianity has redeemed us from that perversion of eros!

 

[josie_L]

The bottom line is the differences between total depravity and the Catholic view of original sin boil down to semantics. I’ve read both views, indeed a great article on this forum affirms how slight the distinctions are, so frankly this debate seems silly to me.

Whether you say original sin wounded man to the point where he will always unavoidably be a sinner (because our sin nature is measured against the holiness of god; and we can never attain divine holiness while residing in the flesh), or you say we’re totally depraved, or you prefer the term total inability … it all amounts to the same thing.

A life denying religion that scorns everything good about our human nature. When you define things like lust as evil of course you’ll convince everyone that they’re a sinner. Lust is biological, indeed we lust in order to promulgate our species (in a biological sense). Therefore, lust is both natural and necessary. When you tell everyone that greed is evil; of course everyone will be made out to be a sinner. However, greed (inherent in capitalism) is perhaps the single best idea to ever hit this planet (at least since the wheel). When you believe in ancient doctrines formulated by primitive superstitious men of course you’ll wind up with a religion that’s contrary to our nature; rather than rational virtues that use our nature to promote the greater good.

I won’t deny that Christianity contains some good virtues; but it also contains plenty of terrible virtues and ideas. Moreover, objectively speaking none of the supernatural events described in scripture actually happened. It’s just ancient stories, no more compelling than Thor or Zeus. What you guys call theology I call mythology. Fun to read, but as a rational intelligent person I know how to distinguish mythology from reality.

How is greed good if it leads to recessions/depressions (as we are currently experiencing now), stealing, embezzlement, fraud, murder, child labor, extortion, blackmail . . . ? How is lust good (not refering to physical attraction/sexual desire) if it leads to adultery, unwanted pregnancies, stds, broken homes, divorce, single parent homes, fatherless children, poverty, promiscuity, immoral lifestyles. bizarre fetishes . . . ? Furthermore, believing in God does not deny our nature but only affirms it as we are created in the image of God. He only asks that we enjoy the fruits of our humanity in a tempered way that does not abuse the very gifts given to us (if we do abuse them we become slaves to our vices). In fact, if we abide by his commandments we experience joys far greater than any humanly pursuits detached from God. Sex accompanied by marital love will always trump lust. Conscientious economic endeavors will always trump greed.

 

[SHW]

Do you agree with these five points:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

 

[SteveGC]

When we are regenerated we are freed from the slavery to sin but we are still capable of choosing it. Our nature is capable of choosing both. In my analogy it would like being an omnivore.

I see. Sorry, I did not read some of your other posts. I thought you advocated a more Calvinistic theology. I do agree with the omnivore analogy, insofar as there is no such thing as someone who can only choose meat. But I don’t agree that there are some who can only choose hay until the grace of faith enters. I think the good deeds of those ignorant of Christ can be pleasing to God, insofar as those actions reveal a cooperation with the inherent goodness of a person infused into him/her at the moment of their creation (for He did create us in His image). Even the atheist who rejects Christ may be capable of pleasing God in this way, unless the good he is doing is accompanied by a conscious effort to reject God.

 

[SHW]

If it makes you feel any better, SHW, I got that it was a joke when you made it, but I still haven’t figured out what “so old it’s pathetic” means. (Actually, I’m not sure if that should make you feel better, or if it just shows that I’m not the sharpest hammer in the toolbox. Probably a little of both.)

P.S. Okay, but seriously, I’m reminded of another recent thread, where a poster told me that my saying that Protestantism isn’t “a different religion”, is evidence that I myself am not a real Catholic. You gotta love the internet.

“So old it’s pathetic” was her way of telling me that she heard that joke a long time ago and she was not impressed by it back then either.

Yep, the internet lets all of us show our true ignorance.

Ummm, shouldn’t it be “sharpest ‘tack’ in the toolbox?” Could not resist, but I am not the least bit sorry.

Thanks for your post. It helps make this day a good day for me!

Happy 4th of July “Independence Day”, everyone!

 

[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

Yes, SyCarl we agree that grace is necessary. However, the grace that God persuades us with can be accepted or refused (free will).

 

[PRmerger]

I think the **good deeds of those ignorant of Christ **can be pleasing to God, insofar as those actions reveal a cooperation with the inherent goodness of a person infused into him/her at the moment of their creation (for He did create us in His image).

Exactly. And the Good Samaritan is a perfect example of this.

Even the atheist who rejects Christ may be capable of pleasing God in this way, unless the good he is doing is accompanied by a conscious effort to reject God.

Indeed. However, I don’t think it’s possible for an atheist to be “saintly” in the way that, say, St. Maximilian Kolbe was saintly. To give up one’s life for another out of pure love of neighbor–only one who has said yes to God will say yes to this type of sacrifice.

 

[SHW]

Must.

Not.

Correct.

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

Sit down, relax, and breathe calmly before you read the following:

Are you an english teacher or does it just hurt your brain to much too see misteaks in grammer and spellihg?

 

[SteveGC]

to much too see misteaks in grammer and spellihg?

LOL

Nice.