What's so important about total depravity?

[JonNC]

Coming from an ex-Lutheran?

Seriously?

Well, sure. In my last post, the one you responded to, I offered agreement about grace without the “alone “. You come back immediately with a qualifier.

I seem to recall a famous Lutheran - maybe one of their founders - that was fairly well known for adding an “alone” into scripture that is also famously absent from the actual text.

And the basis for “solely”, again, is that fact that salvation is also by faith.

So, luther “adds” alone and you add solely.
You provide a basis for solely. I provided a basis for grace alone.
Faith is not an alternative route to salvation, not an alternative to grace. Faith is the way we access justification, and ultimately salvation.
So, in that way, the alone still makes sense.
It is by grace through faith, not grace or faith.

And even then you have this darn problem where the capability to reject must be present in your soteriology.

And of course that capability exists. Free will is the capability to reject grace.
In some ways, based only on my observation (which may be wrong) that the Catholic concept of mortal sin is like this. You know it is wrong. You know it is a violation of God’s will for us. And you choose to reject grace and do it anyway.
When we sin, grace calls us back, back to repentance. And some people reject that call, too.

 

[Vonsalza]

When we sin, grace calls us back, back to repentance. And some people reject that call, too.

Excellent. Thus is my point. Assent is required, ergo salvation is not by “grace alone”. The free moral agent must be equally able to affirm or deny, providing the necessary basis of God’s judgement.

May we never say that salvation is solely by works! But works (your assent, your faith) is not absent from the process. Thus the descriptor “alone” seems to be an ill-fitting garment.

“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

 

[JonNC]

Excellent. Thus is my point. Assent is required, ergo salvation is not by “grace alone”.

Then back to the original question: is salvation possible without grace. Are there other pathways available. Can salvation be achieved without it?
The qualifier alone only speaks to that question. It doesn’t exclude those things that happen under grace. So, when grace calls us back to repentance, that is under grace. How we respond to grace doesn’t include or exclude that fact that grace is necessary.
Is assent possible without grace?

May we never say that salvation is solely by works! But works (your assent, your faith) is not absent from the process. Thus the descriptor “alone” seems to be an ill-fitting garment.

Faith is not a work, other than His work in us. It is a gift. Assent is passive , receiving the gift. If one one must work for a gift, then it is not a gift.
When a Christian who doesn’t believe in sacraments speaks of them as works, my guess is you would join me in contradicting that view, stating they are not our works, but the means by which we receive grace- forgiveness of sins.

Again, it is by grace that we receive salvation. That could be and is a complete thought. What happens under grace, because of grace, is indeed part of grace.

Can you name another pathway to salvation that isn’t the result of grace?

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

Amen. Can you do that other than by grace?

 

[Flopfoot]

Is this a misunderstanding of “grace alone” where the 2 interpretations are:

“grace is the only thing that can do it”, and

“grace by itself can do it” ?

 

[Vonsalza]

Then back to the original question: is salvation possible without grace.

And the answer is “of course not”. But not grace alone.

I’m happy to allow that grace preserves the possibility of the choice, but the choice itself is a thing, Jon. Ergo salvation shall never be by grace alone unless you’re the most ardent hyper-Calvinist (which we agree is a faulted theology).

The qualifier alone only speaks to that question. It doesn’t exclude those things that happen under grace.

Because we must have choice, yes it does. Prevenient grace must be present with both those that affirm Christ and those that don’t as it’s present in all humanity. Since the saved and the doomed represent two different outcomes of the same grace, it cannot cannot be by “grace alone” as a function of logic. If it were, there’d be only one outcome.

Faith is not a work, other than His work in us. It is a gift. Assent is passive , receiving the gift. If one one must work for a gift, then it is not a gift.

Nope.

Assent is deliberate. It is an act. Irresistible grace is a lie else a God that judges is capricious and unjust.

That those who labor in the faith also grow in the faith is such an established fact in Christianity (and also religion as a concept) that I’m not going to trouble myself very much with defending it. Paul does it well enough for me in epistle after epistle with his calls to Christian action.

Can you name another pathway to salvation that isn’t the result of grace?

I don’t need to. I’m merely suggesting (correctly) that grace isn’t the only actor in the salvific process.

Amen. Can you do that other than by grace?

No, but you must do. Else your faith is dead.

 

[JonNC]

And the answer is “of course not”. But not grace alone.

So, if not by grace alone, that means there is another way.

I’m happy to allow that grace preserves the possibility of the choice, but the choice itself is a thing, Jon. Ergo salvation shall never be by grace alone unless you’re the most ardent hyper-Calvinist (which we agree is a faulted theology).

But you are looking st grace alone through that faulty lense. That’s a wrong view of grace alone.
All the things we’ve mentioned- faith, good works, word and sacrament - are only available by grace, by grace. Grace alone is not an exclusion of all these things. Instead, grace is made assessable through them. Grace alone does not mean OSAS, or perseverance of saints, or irresistible, or limited. It is available to all, accessed through faith, strengthened by word and sacrament, and manifest in the good works we do.
And none of that is possible without grace. It all only happens because of grace

 

[Vonsalza]

So, if not by grace alone, that means there is another way.

No it doesn’t. It just means that grace isn’t alone.

I must have an engine to drive my car to the office. But “engine alone” won’t get me there. I need a gearbox too.

But you are looking st grace alone through that faulty lense.

No, you’re just discounting the value of your own necessary, active participation in order to achieve salvation.

 

[JonNC]

Assent is deliberate. It is an act. Irresistible grace is a lie else a God that judges is capricious and unjust.

Assent can’t happen with the prompting of the Spirit. The free will we have allows us to reject it.
I agree regarding irresistible grace.

That those who labor in the faith also grow in the faith is such an established fact in Christianity (and also religion as a concept) that I’m not going to trouble myself very much with defending it. Paul does it well enough for me in epistle after epistle with his calls to Christian action.

I don’t disagree. But again, man on his own is incapable of it without the Spirit

I don’t need to. I’m merely suggesting (correctly) that grace isn’t the only actor in the salvific process.

Then name which part of what we do is not the result of grace. The apostle tells us. Salvation is by grace through faith, and not of ourselves.

No, but you must do . Else your faith is dead .

Exactly! A rejection of grace.

 

[JonNC]

No it doesn’t. It just means that grace isn’t alone.

I must have an engine to drive my car to the office. But “engine alone” won’t get me there. I need a gearbox too.

Grace is the car. All of those other things are the means by which the car performs.

No, you’re just discounting the value of your own necessary, active participation in order to achieve salvation.

Actually, that’s not true. My active participation includes receiving the sacraments and hearing the word, prayer and helping others. All made possible by grace, which I can, of course, reject.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t disagree. But again, man on his own is incapable of it without the Spirit

I won’t argue against it. But the Spirit alone doesn’t bring him to salvation unless you’re a Calvinist.

Then name which part of what we do is not the result of grace. The apostle tells us. Salvation is by grace through faith, and not of ourselves.

The apostle is right; we can’t work our way into heaven.

But as both the man rejecting Christ and the man affirming Christ have the same grace within them, that proves there’s another factor contributing to salvation than grace. Thus It’s not “alone”.

Exactly! A rejection of grace.

Right! One of two possible actions in response to the call to salvation.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No it doesn’t. It just means that grace isn’t alone.

I must have an engine to drive my car to the office. But “engine alone” won’t get me there. I need a gearbox too.

Grace is the car. All of those other things are the means by which the car performs.

Very good, then the driver chooses whether the car is driven to salvation or destruction. So salvation is not by grace alone.

 

[JonNC]

I won’t argue against it. But the Spirit alone doesn’t bring him to salvation unless you’re a Calvinist.

I agree. But what Calvinism teaches is not grace alone.

The apostle is right; we can’t work our way into heaven.

But as both the man rejecting Christ and the man affirming Christ have the same grace within them, that proves there’s another factor contributing to salvation than grace. Thus It’s not “alone”.

But that isn’t what the term grace alone is referring to. Grace alone refers to the fact that there is no other means by which we come to salvation. Receiving or rejecting grace is besides the point of grace alone. I\t takes me back to the original question: is there another way someone can come to salvation other than by grace?

Right! One of two possible actions in response to the call to salvation.

The apostle is right; we can’t work our way into heaven.

These are apparent contradictions. Is the action to assent to grace a work?

 

[JonNC]

Very good, then the driver chooses whether the car is driven to salvation or destruction. So salvation is not by grace alone.

Then there must be another mechanism, other than the car, for the driver.
Grace alone is not about the choice. It only says that the car (grace) is alone the mechanism to salvation.

 

[Vonsalza]

I agree. But what Calvinism teaches is not grace alone.

I assure you that most Calvinists would vehemently argue that they do affirm “grace alone”. But perhaps you’re alluding to a technicality through which you define it differently.

But that isn’t what the term grace alone is referring to. Grace alone refers to the fact that there is no other means by which we come to salvation. Receiving or rejecting grace is besides the point of grace alone.

Then by the fact that it requires assent - as you identify above - it’s not “alone”, Jon.

Point blank - if grace is resistible, then it’s role in ultimate salvation isn’t unaided.

is there another way someone can come to salvation other than by grace?

As in “sans grace”? No. I’ve never claimed otherwise.

These are apparent contradictions. Is the action to assent to grace a work?

It is.

Maybe your interpretation needs reconsidering. I don’t see the contradiction. I just see a preemptive condemnation of Pelagianism.

 

[JonNC]

I assure you that most Calvinists would vehemently argue that they do affirm “grace alone”. But perhaps you’re alluding to a technicality through which you define it differently.

If you and I want to have a conversation about how and in what ways Calvinism is wrong, we would spend a good good deal of time agreeing with each other, which would be a novelty in itself. . But yes, I’m not speaking about Calvinism.

Then by the fact that it requires assent - as you identify above - it’s not “alone”, Jon.

Assent to what, Von? Grace.

Point blank - if grace is resistible, then it’s role in ultimate salvation isn’t unaided.

That doesn’t speak to grace alone either, since the aid is grace itself.

As in “sans grace”? No. I’ve never claimed otherwise.

Good. That is all grace alone means. Nothing more

It is.

Maybe your interpretation needs reconsidering. I don’t see the contradiction. I just see a preemptive condemnation of Pelagianism.

Okay

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

As in “sans grace”? No. I’ve never claimed otherwise.

Good. That is all grace alone means. Nothing more

Nossir. The opposite of “sans grace” (or “without grace”) is “with grace”. It’s not “with grace alone”.

 

[Flopfoot]

in logic’s language, “Grace is necessary but not sufficient”

 

[Flopfoot]

Btw I don’t agree with your earlier idea about what Pelagianism is. To me, Pelagianism means denying the effects of original sin entirely. It doesn’t mean saying “original sin has certain effects on us but doesn’t stop us from being able to do X”