What Is This All About?!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]A classy icon does not a genius make.[/quote]

Dusty, your premise is inherently flawed. Einstein was a genius. Einstein would make a classy icon. The only logical conclusion is that "a classy icon [i]does[/i] a genius make."


...





...




lol

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 1 2004, 11:32 PM'] lol. Once Todd posts on a thread I feel [i]almost[/i] like Rome has spoken and nothing is left to say on the issue. [/quote]
Lol.

Hes a good apologetist....guy....brother...

[Broccolifish]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Aug 3 2004, 10:37 PM'] Brocolli,

If you are indeed positing a real perspective of the reformers and their teachings, how do you square your definition of the nature of man with the doctrine of total depravity? (especially as deliniated by J. Calvin)

peace... [/quote]
I believe in the doctrines of grace as espoused by John Calvin and St. Augustine, as incompletely espoused by Martin Luther and the rest of the Reformers.

Total Depravity is a biblical truth, and in no way conflicts with what I have said about the nature of man. I don't understand how you would get that impression.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 4 2004, 08:30 AM'] I believe in the doctrines of grace as espoused by John Calvin and St. Augustine, as incompletely espoused by Martin Luther and the rest of the Reformers.

Total Depravity is a biblical truth, and in no way conflicts with what I have said about the nature of man. I don't understand how you would get that impression. [/quote]
I believe the doctrines of grace espoused by Scripture and Tradition, which includes all the Fathers of the Church, and not simply St. Augustine.

Nowhere in Scripture does the term "total depravity" appear to describe man's condition after the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

[God Conquers]

[quote]Martin Luther said "one cannot have God as their father without haveing the Church as their mother." I for one don't like anyone calling my mother a pervert.[/quote]

Pedro, St. Cyprian said the above quote... although it is possible Martin Luther quoted or stole from St. Cyprian.

[PedroX]

Brocolli,

You described the nature of man as simultaneously justified and sinful. This doesn't appear to square with the supposed doctrine of total depravity. Can you show me how you make this fit?

G. Conquers,

M. Luther must have stolen it then. I have the source at home, but alas am stuck at the office now. Good work on tracking down the original.

peace...

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 4 2004, 08:18 AM']
Dusty, your premise is inherently flawed. Einstein was a genius. Einstein would make a classy icon. The only logical conclusion is that "a classy icon [i]does[/i] a genius make."


...





...




lol  [/quote]
He obviously wasn't TOO smart, if he couldn't even see the pre-figurement of Christ [color=red]edited[/color]

Edited August 4, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Paladin D]

IQ does not determine one's acceptance and faith in Christ. If that were so, many of us would not be followers today.

[Broccolifish]

[quote]I believe the doctrines of grace espoused by Scripture and Tradition, which includes all the Fathers of the Church, and not simply St. Augustine.[/quote]
The Fathers contradict one another, themselves, and the Scriptures at various points. Augustine, Calvin, and Luther provide a more Scriptural testimony to the plan for salvation than the Roman Catholic faith, which is really not the Christian Gospel at all.

[quote]Nowhere in Scripture does the term "total depravity" appear to describe man's condition after the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.[/quote]
Irrelevant. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Scriptures either. Total Depravity is a convenient shorthand for the Biblical declaration of man's condition.

[color=blue]Jeremiah 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Job 14:4
4 Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!

Job 15:14-16
14 "What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in His sight;
16 How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!

Ecclesiastes 9:3
3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.

Psalms 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

Isaiah 64:6
6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Matthew 12:33
33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

John 3:19-21
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

John 6:44
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:53
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

John 6:65
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

John 8:47
47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

John 10:26
26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Acts 13:41
41 “Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.”

Acts 28:27
27 “’For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understanding with their heart and return, and I would heal them.'”

Romans 3:10-12
10 as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one;
11 there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God;
12 all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.”

Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Romans 8:7-9
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

2 Corinthians 4:4
4 In whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Ephesians 2:1-5
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

Ephesians 2:12
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Colossians 2:13
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Titus 1:15
15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Titus 3:3
3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.[/color]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Not a single one of these quotes disprove the Catholic understanding of Original Sin and Concupiscience, nor the nature of Man as taught by the Holy Magisterium.

However, the notion of Total Depravity, that man is incapable of being good, has a much harder time dealing with passages such as these in which God finds men to be good.

[quote]The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation (Genesis: 7:1)[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 4 2004, 06:02 PM'] The Fathers contradict one another, themselves, and the Scriptures at various points. Augustine, Calvin, and Luther provide a more Scriptural testimony to the plan for salvation than the Roman Catholic faith, which is really not the Christian Gospel at all.


Irrelevant. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Scriptures either. Total Depravity is a convenient shorthand for the Biblical declaration of man's condition.

[color=blue]Jeremiah 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Job 14:4
4 Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!

Job 15:14-16
14 "What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in His sight;
16 How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!

Ecclesiastes 9:3
3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.

Psalms 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

Isaiah 64:6
6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Matthew 12:33
33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

John 3:19-21
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

John 6:44
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:53
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

John 6:65
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

John 8:47
47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

John 10:26
26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Acts 13:41
41 “Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.”

Acts 28:27
27 “’For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understanding with their heart and return, and I would heal them.'”

Romans 3:10-12
10 as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one;
11 there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God;
12 all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.”

Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Romans 8:7-9
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

2 Corinthians 4:4
4 In whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Ephesians 2:1-5
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

Ephesians 2:12
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Colossians 2:13
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Titus 1:15
15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Titus 3:3
3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.[/color] [/quote]
The Church Fathers do not contradict themselves on settled dogma, and St Augustine is a Docter of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

Broccolifish,

I apologize in advance for the length and complexity of this post.

Let me begin by saying that your comments show that you lack any familiarity with the Scholastic philosophy of the early and high middle ages. To call the early Scholastics, and St. Thomas Aquinas in particular, nominalists is to betray a complete lack of knowledge of the philosophical thought of the men of that time. The early Scholastics, and St. Thomas in particular, were [i]realists[/i] as it concerns the [i]universals[/i]. St. Thomas held that the [i]universal form[/i] of a [i]particular[/i] thing is concretely real through a natural mode of being within the [i]particular[/i] itself, but in addition he held that it is also real in the human mind through a mode of intention. Thus the [i]particular[/i] is real, but so is the [i]universal[/i], because the [i]universal[/i] is not a mere [i]concept[/i] or [i]name[/i], but is a real essence existing in both a natural mode in the [i]particular[/i] thing in question, and in a mode of intentionality in the human mind. Moreover, the [i]universal[/i] is not real because of man's thought; instead, it exists the in [i]particular[/i] itself prior to any human apprehension of it through abstraction by the [i]agent intellect[/i]. This philosophical viewpoint was only later denied, culminating in the metaphysical nominalism of Ockham. In concluding my introductory remarks, I would like to point out that I have no real interest in debating points of doctrine with Protestants, because I left Protestantism behind over 15 years ago, and to be blunt, Protestantism bores me; but that being said, I will now move on and give a critique of your post.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date=' Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']It's supposed to be a "dirty word," ICTHUS.  Nominalism was a prevailing metaphysic in the Middle Ages that reduced all universals simply to naming conventions; that is, there were no true universals but only particulars which are categorized by people who name them.[/quote]
This appraisal of the philosophy of the middle ages is a massive generalization and is clearly in error. To call St. Thomas Aquinas, who was a philosophical realist, a nomimalist shows a great lack of knowledge on this topic. Please back up your assertions with quotations from St. Thomas Aquinas showing that this great intellectual of the middle ages was a nominalist.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']This was an attempt to solve the problem of universals, but it really only translated it from the realm of matter to the realm of thought.[/quote]
This statement shows confusion on the nature of the debate about the reality of the [i]universals[/i] and the [i]particulars[/i]. The [i]universal[/i] is the immaterial essence of the [i]particular[/i] thing. The [i]forms[/i] are not material, but immaterial, but that does not mean that they are not real, because they are most certainly real. Reality is not confined to material existence, as any good philosopher or theologian knows. Unless you wish to assert that God, from all eternity, is a material being. The [i]universal[/i] exists in the mind of God and through a mode of intention in the mind of man, and thus the [i]universals[/i] are very real indeed, although they are not material. This type of existence cannot be described as [i]nominal[/i], and to say that it is, is to betray a total lack of understanding of the distinctions made in early medieval Scholasticism. William of Ockham is the full flowering of nominalism in metaphysics and he died in the middle of the 14th century. It is only the later Scholastics, and not all of them by any means, who held to a type of metaphysical nominalism.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']Instead of assigning [i]things[/i] to categories, we now must ask how we account for categorizing [i]thoughts[/i] according to universals in thought.[/quote]
This comment needs further clarification, because as it presently stands, it is so imprecise that it is hard to even see what you mean. Clearly, by abstracting from the [i]particular[/i] through the action of the [i]agent intellect[/i] man does apprehend the [i]form[/i] of the [i]particular[/i] object in question, i.e., he apprehends its [i]universal essence[/i]. But your statement as it is presently worded is so convoluted, as to be unintelligible. The first part of the statement sounds like a form of Kantian idealism, while the second part appears to reduce the [i]universals[/i] to [i]thought[/i] which is not consonant with the metaphysics of early and middle Scholasticism. The [i]universals[/i] exists through a mode of intention in the mind, but it is not the mind that gives them existence, because the [i]universals[/i] exists in each [i]particular[/i] thing in a natural mode prior to any act of human intellection.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']After all, the nominalist may claim that there are no universals, but he relies on them in every act, presuming "types" of events and "types" of things.[/quote]
This statement shows a lack of understanding of the nomimalist position itself, because the nominalists didn't claim that there were [i]no universals[/i] but that the [i]universals[/i] were mere [i]names[/i] or [i]concepts[/i], and so, these two positions, i.e., the misrepresentation of nominalism by Broccolifish, and the actual position of the nominalists, are not identical. But I agree wholeheartedly that the nominalists were in error, I just don't agree with your misrepresentation of their position.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']A "man" is considered different than a "woman" because of a universal [i]idea[/i], even if there is no realm of forms like Plato envisioned, where "manness" resides.[/quote]
This statement doesn't conform to anything I've read in the Scholastics in general or St.Thomas in particular. Men and women share the same universal [i]form[/i] or [i]essence[/i], i.e., human nature, and thus they are one species; and in addition, because they share a common essence, they have the same rights and duties. Certainly, there are biological differences between men and women, and thus they are not identical at the [i]particular[/i] level, but they are equal because they share a common human nature. To assert anything else would involve major philosophical and theological problems. On the theological level it would make the salvation of women impossible, since Christ assumed human nature as a [i]particular[/i] male individual. If men and women at the level of their common humanity are different in the way you imply, it follows that Christ did not save women by becoming man, which is a ludicrous proposition to assert. You need to clarify further what you mean by this bizarre statement. If I were to posit a guess as to your meaning, I think you are trying to distinguish between maleness and femaleness, which are [i]particular instances[/i] of the one [i]universal[/i] human nature, but I don't know why you thought that this idea was vital to your argument. Also, in using the word [i]Idea[/i] you need to be careful, because for Plato the [i]Ideas[/i] are self-subsisting realities not dependent upon thought for their existence; and Aristotle, who accepted in a modified form Plato's views on this topic, also refused to limit their existence to thought. It is not man's apprehension of the [i]universal[/i] that gives it existence; instead, man apprehends the already existing reality of the [i]universal[/i] which then exists in his mind through a mode of intention. You seem to be confusing Kant and Plato.


[quote name='Broccolifish @ Aug 3 2004' date=' 06:38 PM']I believe that William of Ockham (famous for his phrasing of the principle of Parsimony, popularly called "Ockham's Razor") was an important philosopher of this school.[/quote]
Ockham is the full flowering of philosophical nominalism, but he lived at the end of the Scholastic period. This is the only one of your comments so far that is historically accurate.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']To accuse the Reformers of Theological Nominalism is to misunderstand both what they taught and what nominalism claimed.[/quote]
This is the point at issue, and so asserting that what I have said isn't true isn't sufficient, you must prove that it isn't true. You haven't even addressed my points in your post. The Reformers reduction of salvation to an intellectual faith alone, which is not formed by charity, is a [i]theological novum[/i], and no one prior to the 16th century would have accepted such an idea. As. St. Augustine said about faith and works, "Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved. When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law, he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification." [St. Augustine, "On Faith and Works," [u]Ancient Christian Writers[/u], volume 48, pages 28-29] The Catholic Church holds that we are justified by grace alone, through faith, but that faith must be formed by charity ([i]agape[/i]), or it is dead and cannot justify a man. As St. Paul said, "If I have all faith, as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing," and as he went on to say, "[i]Love[/i] bears all things, [i]believes all things[/i], hopes all things, endures all things." [1 Cor. 13:2 and 13:7] Faith must be infused with divine love or it is dead and cannot justify anyone. Moreover, the Reformers reduction of the doctrine of justification to legal categories of thought is nominalist as well, for this conception of justification does not exhaust the nature of what it is to be justified by grace alone through faith. There is an excellent article on this topic by an Eastern Orthodox author, and here is a link to that article: [url="http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx"]Salvation by Christ[/url]


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']Martin Luther was, to be sure, a nominalist in at least some way.  Apotheoun is not making any new claim.  In fact, by rejecting the Platonic and Aristotelian answers to the problem of Universals, it would be difficult to classify Luther as anything but a nominalist.[/quote]
On this we agree, because Luther was a nominalist; and I would add, that he was a theological nominalist.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']However, how Apotheoun [i]defines[/i] "theological nominalism" shows linguistic revision.[/quote]
This is an interesting assertion, but it is not backed up with any evidence. Thus I stand by my original statement. Clearly, the Reformers reduced the various mysteries of the faith to simple categories of thought, as an example the reduction of justification to a legalistic framework is clearly a form of nominalism applied to theology. It empties justification of any ontological content, for as I stated in my previous post, what God declares to be so, is so, not only through some form of a "legal fiction" as the Protestant Reformers erroneously held, but also through a true regeneration of man at the ontological level.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']He has also misunderstood the Reformation phrase [i]simul iustus et peccator[/i], which does not intend to say that we are completely sinful and completely justified at the same time; rather, it means that we are simultaneously justified and [i]still sinners[/i].  To quote the Heidelberg Disputation, 1518: [i]The Law says, 'Do this,' and it is never done; the Gospel says, 'Believe this,' and everything is already done[/i].[/quote]
I have not misunderstood it at all, but you have evaded the point at issue with a quotation from Luther that really doesn't address our conflicting views. Let me point out first that although Luther's aphorism is untraditional, a Catholic can make use of it, if it is properly defined, and the reason that this is possible is because Catholics distinguish between [i]mortal[/i] sin and [i]venial[/i] sin, and it is only [i]mortal[/i] sin that expels charity from the soul. In other words, [i]venial[/i] sins do not remove a person for a state of grace, and so a person with various [i]venial[/i] sins can be called just and yet [i]venially[/i] sinful at the same time, but not [i]mortally[/i] sinful. Now let us move on to the crux of the dispute between the Catholic Church and Luther as it concerns the use of the phrase, [i]simul justus et peccator[/i], and how it is to be understood. When Luther used the phrase [i]simul justus et peccator[/i], he was not using it in order to differentiate between [i]mortal[/i] and [i]venial[/i] sins, but he used it in order to assert that [i]concupiscence[/i], which is the inclination to sin caused by the fall, is itself sin; but the Catholic Church doesn't accept that to be the case. So, even though concupiscence remains in the justified man after his translation to a state of grace, it does not follow that he is still sinful. The fact that you didn't know this shows that you are unfamiliar with this element of the dispute between the Lutheran Churches and the Catholic Church. Prescinding from the various historical disputes about this phrase, had you even looked at all the documents issued in connection with the recently signed [u]Joint Declaration on Justification[/u] between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, you would have had a better grasp of this important topic. What I am saying about Luther's understanding of the phrase can be easily confirmed by looking at the [u]Joint Declaration[/u] itself, in which sadly the Lutherans in their explanatory paragraph (n. 29) continue to assert this bizarre theory, and by looking at the socalled [i]Roman Response[/i] to the [u]Joint Declaration[/u], which was issued by the [i]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/i], clarifying the Catholic position on this issue. Now, since this is an important issue, I will quote in full the section of the [i]Roman Response[/i] that touches on use of the [i]simul justus et peccator[/i] phrase, and here is what the CDF said: "The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 [i]The Justified as Sinner[/i] (nn. 28-1,0). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God. [cf. Council of Trent, [u]Decree on original sin[/u] (DS 1515)] It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula [i]at the same time righteous and sinner[/i], as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 ('Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament ...Looking at themselves ... however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them...'), is not acceptable. This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks. [cf. Council of Trent, [u]Decree on justification[/u], cap. 8: ". . . iustificatio . . . quae non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis" (DS 1528); cf. also can.11 (DS 15619)] The expression 'Opposition to God' (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, '. . . God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love,' because man's interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on [i]simul iustus et peccator[/i] is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification." [[u]Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration[/u], no. 1] When you look at section 4.4 of the [u]Joint Declaration[/u] itself, you can see exactly what the Lutherans understand by the phrase, [i]simul justus et peccator[/i], and it has nothing to do with the quotation that you (Broccolifish) gave from Luther's Heidelberg Disputation; instead, it is the assertion that man is totally just and totally sinful at the same time, and that concupiscence is sin, when in fact it is not. This conception of justification is irrational and impossible, in that it is contrary to the principle of non-contradiction. Certainly, the phrase can be given a Catholic meaning by distinguishing between [i]mortal[/i] and [i]venial[/i] sins, but the Lutherans do not do that; instead, they assert, as Luther himself asserted, that man is totally just and totally sinful [i.e., mortally sinful] at the same time, and this attempt to combine mutually exclusive terms is based on Luther's view of justification as a mere [i]legal fiction[/i], i.e., upon his belief that grace really doesn't change man in any kind of an ontological sense.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']Grace fulfills the law, and St. Augustine held, once one is in a state of grace, he can, by grace, keep the moral law.[/quote]
On this we basically agree, and confirmation of this can be seen by looking at my quotation from St. Augustine's treatise "On Faith and Works" above. It's important to note that the ritual and judicial precepts of the law were of a temporary nature, and that by our assimilation to Christ we have undergone these things in a spiritual way in Him, because He is our Head; but the moral law, which is written by God into the very nature of the human person, is eternal; and so, all men, under the power of God's grace, must do good and avoid evil.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']The work of salvation, justification and sanctification both, is accomplished.  It is worked in Christ.[/quote]
This is what Catholics believe as well, but unlike the Reformers, our soteriology and ecclesiology are not [i]nominalist[/i] in nature, because Catholics understand that the application of the merits of Christ's redemptive activity continues throughout time in the Church; just as His passion continues in, with, and through, His Body, the Church. For the Church is the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout time. In reference to the continuation of Christ's passion in the Church, St. Augustine said, "What does the scripture mean when it tells us of the body of one man so extended in space that all can kill him? We must understand these words of ourselves, of our Church, of the Body of Christ. For Jesus Christ is one man, having a Head and a Body. . . . And so the passion of Christ is not in Christ alone; and yet the passion of Christ is in Christ alone. For if in Christ you consider both the Head and the Body, then Christ's passion is in Christ alone, [i]but if by Christ you mean only the Head, then Christ's passion is not in Christ alone. For if the sufferings of Christ are in Christ alone, that is in the Head alone; why does a certain member of Him, Paul the Apostle, say, 'In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions?' Hence if you are in the members of Christ, . . . whatever you suffer at the hands of those who are not members of Christ, was lacking to the sufferings of Christ. It is added precisely because it was lacking. You fill up the measure, you do not cause it to overflow. You will suffer just so much as must be added of your sufferings to the complete passion of Christ, who suffered as our Head and who continues still to suffer in His members, that is, in us[/i]." [Emile Mersch, [u]The Whole Christ[/u], pages 424-425; taken from St. Augustine's, [u]Enarrationes in Psalmos[/u], Commentary on Psalm 62] Clearly, for St. Augustine, Christ and the Church are one mystical Man, and so anything that happens to His Body, to each individual member of it, happens to Christ. This truth is beautifully illustrated in the account of St. Paul's conversion in the book of Acts, for when Christ appears to Saul on the road to Damascus, He says, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" [Acts 9:4] You will notice that Jesus didn't say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting My followers," no, He didn't say that; instead, Christ said, ". . . why are you persecuting [b][i]Me[/i][/b]?" Why did the Lord say this? Because He associates all those who have been incorporated into His Body with Himself, for all who have been made members of Christ are living His life and energy in this world, as they move toward their definitive home in Heaven with their mystical Head. [cf. John 15:1-11] Moreover, in reference to suffering St. Paul tells us in Romans 8:14-17, that ". . . all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of sonship. When we cry, 'Abba! Father!' It is the Spirit Himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, and fellow heirs with Christ, [i]provided we suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him[/i]." Jesus is the Messianic Suffering Servant, and the Church is the perpetual extension of this reality throughout time; and so, if we are to be glorified with Him, we must participate in His passion. This participation in Christ's passion on the part of His Body the Church, is a wonderful gift of God's grace, for it is Christ who suffers in each one of us.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']Those who are being saved will be saved, and His Will will not be frustrated.  Christ's death works in two ways for the believer:  First, he is [i]declared righteous in spite of his sin[/i].[/quote]
Here again is the crux of our disagreement, because Catholics hold that what God declares to be true, is ontologically true. The Reformers held that God declares, as a [i]legal fiction[/i], that man is just, when in fact he remains unjust, and as a Catholic I cannot subscribe to that viewpoint. This theological idea, that God declares something to be so, when it in reality is not, makes God a liar; and this reduction of justification to legal categories of thought is a form of [i]theological nominalism[/i].


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']Second, he is made righteous by the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification.[/quote]
Catholics hold that justification and sanctification occur simultaneously, and this Catholic belief is the ancient understanding of the effect of justifying grace as the Protestant scholar Alister McGrath quite readily admits in his historical survey of the doctrine of justification, for as he said, "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that the distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the [i]ordo salutis[/i], [b]the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before[/b]. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification as opposed to its mode must therefore be regarded as a genuine [b]theological novum[/b]." [Alister McGrath, [u]Iustitia Dei[/u], volume 1, page 186]


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']The Reformed doctrines of grace do not allow for Apotheoun's accusation of Nominalism, however, because the sinner, when regenerated, is a new creation; the Holy Spirit within him, he is not the sinner he was, sin though he still may.[/quote]
Again, this is where we disagree, because I hold, in line with the 2,000 tradition of the Church, that when a man is justified, all that is truly sinful is removed from him, concupiscence alone, which is not in reality sin, remains; and you hold, in line with the [i]theological novelties[/i] of the 16th century Protestant [i]nominalism[/i], that man, even after being justified, is and remains totally sinful, because grace does not establish an ontological connection between man and God, it does not truly begin the process of man's [i]theosis[/i], but instead only establishes a [i]legal fiction[/i], whereby God calls the totally sinful man just, even though he in reality he remains unjust.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']He is now a saint, righteous by Christ's work.[/quote]
I agree, because the righteousness of the justified man is a gift of God's grace, but this [i]grace given righteousness[/i] is not foreign or extrinsic to the justified man, and so it becomes his actual possession, because grace has ontologically changed him, making him truly just and not merely [i]nominally[/i] just.


[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM']It should be seen that what Apotheoun accuses the Reformers of is really nothing more than G.K. Chesterton calling Calvinism "The New Manichaeism."  That is, it's hogwash.[/quote]
There is great truth in what Chesterton said in comparing Calvinism and Manichaeism, even though you don't recognize this fact; but anyone familiar with St. Augustine's Anti-Manichaean writings would understand what Chesterton meant. To say that nature is in itself sinful and depraved is to say that sin and evil are essential and thus created realities, when in fact they are not. The assertion that nature is evil is a form of dualism. In reality, evil is a privation of the good, it is a relative absence of the good in the will of the creature, and so evil and sin have their origin in man's will, not in God. God is all good, all holy, all perfect, and so He is not the cause of sin, but He permits man to sin, because He created man in freedom. Clearly, it was man's abuse of his own created freedom that brought sin into the world, and thus God is not the author or cause of sin. God's foreknowledge of our sins does not mean that He is the author of sin. Whatever He causes, He foreknows, but it does not follow that whatever He foreknows, He causes. [cf. St. Augustine, [u]De Libero Arbitrio[/u], Book 3, 2:4-3:8, 4:11; [u]City of God[/u], Book 5, 10:1-2] Moreover it should be remembered, that every nature is from God as is every good thing. Sin is not something positive; it is a defect rather than a created nature. This defect or absence of the good is not the work of God. It is a voluntary defect and it is in the power of man's will to cause it. [St. Augustine, [u]De Libero Arbitrio[/u], Book 2, 20:54] Calvinism makes sin natural to man, and in doing this it postulates a form of dualism akin to Manichaeism, and so Chesterton's comment is apropos.

As I said at the very beginning of this post, I have no interest in an extended debate on these issues: first, because my time is limited as I'm preparing to go back to school; and second, to be honest, the [i]theological novelties[/i] of the Protestant Reformers hold no intellectual interest for me. I do recommend reading an excellent book which compares the Catholic and Protestant theological systems, and it's called, [u]Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as Evidenced by their Symbolical Writings[/u], by Johann Adam Moehler. Moehler's book is a detailed study of the theological and anthropological issues that separate Protestants and Catholics, and unlike some people's comparisons of Catholic and Protestant soteriology, it uses the documents of both sides in order to fairly present their positions. I highly recommend the book.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 5, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Aug 4 2004, 02:02 PM'] Irrelevant.  The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Scriptures either.  Total Depravity is a convenient shorthand for the Biblical declaration of man's condition. [/quote]
Oh it's quite relevant, because the doctrine of the [i]Trinity[/i] is present in scripture, but the doctrine of [i]total depravity[/i] is not. Nor do any of the quotations you've given prove that man's nature is totally depraved. Man's nature is not depraved after the fall, because Adam lost nothing natural to his existence as man; instead, he lost the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace (divine intimacy and communion), and the preternatural gifts of integrity, immortality, impassibility, and infused knowledge. Moreover, if nature is sinful, then it follows that God, as the sole Creator of nature, is the cause and origin of sin, but every Catholic Christian knows that that idea is false, because moral evil and sin are not natural, nor are they essential and created realities; instead, moral evil is unnatural, it is a relative absence of the good in the will of the creature, and to say otherwise is to fall into Manichaean dualism. Clearly, unregenerate man cannot save himself, for he requires the gift of God's grace in order to have the likeness to God ([i]theoeideis[/i]) lost by sin restored, but that is not the same as saying that man's nature is totally depraved.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 5, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

Apotheoun!!!!!

Someone Give Him Church Scholar!!!!!!!

[qfnol31]