The Law (god's Law, Not The Civil Law)

[Apotheoun]

ICTHUS my friend, we've already covered this topic many times, but for the sake of clarity, here are a couple of earlier exchanges on the issue of [i]total depravity[/i]:

[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

Here is a link to the original thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16965&view=findpost&p=295160"]What is this all about? From the Council of Trent[/url]


[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:11 PM']Ephesians 2:1-10

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

This is total depravity. Total depravity is not the belief that man is as sinful as he will ever be, but rather, that he is, without God's quickening grace, able to bring himself back to life from the dead. This is why, Lorraine Boettner, in his work "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", prefers to call the doctrine "Total Inability" rather than "Total Depravity", because the word "Depraved" carries a connotation in todays language which is not entirely faithful to the Reformers teaching on the matter.[/quote]
ICTHUS,

The problem is this, you read scripture in the light of the 450 year old tradition of John Calvin, and I read scripture in the light of the 2,000 year old Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church. Scripture does not teach that man's nature is totally depraved, and thus I will not agree with you on this topic. I, unlike the followers of Calvin, am not a Manichaean dualist. I hold that nature is created by God, and that it is good, because He has made it. Nature cannot be depraved, nor is man intrinsically evil, for to believe that is to be a Manichaean, and not a Christian. Now, I do believe that because of the fall, man's nature, wounded by the loss of the preternatural gifts intended to perfect it, cannot achieve, under its own power, eternal life. Moreover, for man to be saved, he must be raised above his nature, and above his natural existence, into the supernatural life of the Triune God, and this can only be accomplished through the gift of God's grace.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - One other thing, I don't use the NIV Bible, and the reason I don't is that it was translated by Evangelical scholars in order to support various Protestant doctrinal theories, including the idea that nature is sinful. Thus in the quotation you've given above, the following translation is given: ". . . also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our [i]sinful nature[/i] and following its desires and thoughts." What the NIV translators have translated as "sinful nature" is the Greek word, "sarx," which is accurately translated as the English word "flesh." Thus, nowhere does scripture call nature in itself "sinful." In fact, sin is by definition "unnatural."

P.P.S. - A Catholic can accept the technical term "total inability" in relation to man's natural status before God, but can never accept the concept of "total depravity." The reason that a Catholic can accept the first term is because salvation is purely by God's grace, which is a supernatural gift imparted to man in order to restore, perfect, and elevate him above his own natural existence. Thus, by the power of grace given to man in Christ Jesus, the divine likeness disfigured by sin is restored, and man is elevated into the very life and energy of the Trinity, i.e., he is divinized. But the second term, i.e., "total depravity," is not acceptable, because nature is not depraved.

Here's a link to the original thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16965&view=findpost&p=310328"]What is this all about? From the Council of Trent[/url]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 23 2004, 07:09 PM'] ICTHUS my friend, we've already covered this topic many times, but for the sake of clarity, here are a couple of earlier exchanges on the issue of [i]total depravity[/i]:


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

Here is a link to the original thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16965&view=findpost&p=295160"]What is this all about? From the Council of Trent[/url]



ICTHUS,

The problem is this, you read scripture in the light of the 450 year old tradition of John Calvin, and I read scripture in the light of the 2,000 year old Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church. Scripture does not teach that man's nature is totally depraved, and thus I will not agree with you on this topic. I, unlike the followers of Calvin, am not a Manichaean dualist. I hold that nature is created by God, and that it is good, because He has made it. Nature cannot be depraved, nor is man intrinsically evil, for to believe that is to be a Manichaean, and not a Christian. Now, I do believe that because of the fall, man's nature, wounded by the loss of the preternatural gifts intended to perfect it, cannot achieve, under its own power, eternal life. Moreover, for man to be saved, he must be raised above his nature, and above his natural existence, into the supernatural life of the Triune God, and this can only be accomplished through the gift of God's grace.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - One other thing, I don't use the NIV Bible, and the reason I don't is that it was translated by Evangelical scholars in order to support various Protestant doctrinal theories, including the idea that nature is sinful. Thus in the quotation you've given above, the following translation is given: ". . . also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our [i]sinful nature[/i] and following its desires and thoughts." What the NIV translators have translated as "sinful nature" is the Greek word, "sarx," which is accurately translated as the English word "flesh." Thus, nowhere does scripture call nature in itself "sinful." In fact, sin is by definition "unnatural."

P.P.S. - A Catholic can accept the technical term "total inability" in relation to man's natural status before God, but can never accept the concept of "total depravity." The reason that a Catholic can accept the first term is because salvation is purely by God's grace, which is a supernatural gift imparted to man in order to restore, perfect, and elevate him above his own natural existence. Thus, by the power of grace given to man in Christ Jesus, the divine likeness disfigured by sin is restored, and man is elevated into the very life and energy of the Trinity, i.e., he is divinized. But the second term, i.e., "total depravity," is not acceptable, because nature is not depraved.

Here's a link to the original thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16965&view=findpost&p=310328"]What is this all about? From the Council of Trent[/url] [/quote]
I don't get it. By total depravity, we of course mean total inability. In fact, Lorraine Boettner, in "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" uses this exact term...

[Brother Adam]

Why do you use sources who's reputation has proven to be worse than John Kerry's? Boettner has been exposed for his misrepresentations and lies over and over again. Yet you feel you must embrace them? For what? Pride?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I don't get it. By total depravity, we of course mean total inability. In fact, Lorraine Boettner, in "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" uses this exact term... [/quote]

there is a catechismically large difference between total inability and total depravity. Total Inability, as Apotheoun has already stated, is merely an assertion that no human act, without the Grace of God, is meritorious, thus, unregenerate man is unable to merit salvation except by Grace. Total Depravity, on the other hand, is an idea stating that every action done by unregenerate man is sinful, because his very nature is totally depraved, that is, fully evil. An action can be "un-meritorious" in a salvific sense without being sinful.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 24 2004, 05:45 PM'] Why do you use sources who's reputation has proven to be worse than John Kerry's? Boettner has been exposed for his misrepresentations and lies over and over again. Yet you feel you must embrace them? For what? Pride? [/quote]
Perhaps in [u]"Roman Catholicism", [/u]yes. Though I have yet to see a Roman Catholic debunking of [u]"The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination"[/u]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 24 2004, 05:53 PM']
there is a catechismically large difference between total inability and total depravity. Total Inability, as Apotheoun has already stated, is merely an assertion that no human act, without the Grace of God, is meritorious, thus, unregenerate man is unable to merit salvation except by Grace. Total Depravity, on the other hand, is an idea stating that every action done by unregenerate man is sinful, because his very nature is totally depraved, that is, fully evil. An action can be "un-meritorious" in a salvific sense without being sinful.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
How can works by the unregenerate not be sinful when 'whatever proceeds not from faith is sin' and the works of those who do not love God are like filthy rags (i.e. sins)

[Guest JeffCR07]

Because your entire point of view [i]begs the question[/i]. The only way that you can come the the Reformed Protestant conclusion is if you attempt to read scripture while already looking at scripture from the Reformed Protestant viewpoint.

Ultimately, one must acknowledge that the nature of unregenerate Man is not entirely sinful, nor entirely good, but that we have always had, since the Fall, [i]two[/i] natures, struggling against one another. Our concupiscence on the one hand orders man towards sin and away from God, while the fact that we are not only creatures made by God (from whom only Good can come), but in fact are creatures made in the Image of God, orders man towards God and the light of truth that is Christ. Thus, we are at war with ourselves.

With this truth about human nature in hand, we can see exactly why it is that man is in a state of "total inability" but not "total depravity." By virtue of our sinful nature, we cannot merit heaven without Grace, however, the creative act of God is not weaker than evil, and so the nature that is oriented towards God remains in us.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 24 2004, 03:36 PM']I don't get it. By total depravity, we of course mean total inability. In fact, Lorraine Boettner, in "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" uses this exact term...[/quote]
Then perhaps you should refrain from using the heretical terminology of [i]total depravity[/i] in favor of the more orthodox terminology of [i]total inability[/i]. The two ideas are not synonymous, no matter what you claim. Moreover, if when you use the term [i]total inability[/i], you mean some type of innate or essential depravity existing within human nature, then it follows that your use of the term [i]total inability[/i] still involves heretical notions, and would not be acceptable. This is similar to the Mormon use of the word [i]Trinity[/i] in order to describe God. Mormons of course mean something totally different from the Catholic understanding of God as [i]Trinity[/i] when they use this term, and so, their use of the word hides the fact that they are not really Christians. The Protestant doctrine of [i]total depravity[/i] is heretical, because man lost nothing natural to his humanity in the fall; instead, he lost the supernatural gift of deifying grace, and the preternatural gifts of infused knowledge, impassibility, immortality, and integrity.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 24 2004, 04:28 PM']How can works by the unregenerate not be sinful when 'whatever proceeds not from faith is sin' and the works of those who do not love God are like filthy rags (i.e. sins)[/quote]
Because the Catholic Church, unlike the Reformers, accepts two orders of being, i.e., uncreated (supernatural) and created (natural), and so, works done by an unregenerate man can be good in the order of nature, but because he is not in a state of grace, his acts are not supernaturally good, and thus they have no power to bring him to salvation. But the acts can still be naturally good, even though they are not meritorious, because every action has an objective nature in itself, an objective end. The Reformers destroyed the objective reality of the moral order by their denial of naturally good works.

As an example: An unregenerate man who is married and never commits adultery has done a naturally good thing, he has not committed the sin of adultery. This natural good will not lead him to salvation because it was not performed under the power of God's grace, but his fidelity to his wife by abstaining from adultery is not evil or sinful; instead, it is an objective good in itself.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

ICTHUS, we have discussed this before. Even St. Augustine recognized that unregenerate man could perform naturally good works.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 23 2004, 01:22 PM'][quote]We are not incapable of doing good, we are incapable of bringing ourselves back to life.[/quote]
Two points of enquiry.

1. It depends on how you mean 'good' - do you mean good in mans eyes, or good in God's eyes?

2. If we are, as you say, incapable of bringing ourselves back to life, then how is it we can get up and answer the door when Jesus comes a-knockin?[/quote]
1. The action in question is either good or evil in its object. Anything else is a form of moral relativism.

2. Man is incapable of acting in the supernatural order without the gift of God's grace, once that gift is given, man's intellect and free will; restored, perfected and elevated by grace, can through grace, empower man to ". . . get up and answer the door when Jesus comes a-knockin."

The Catholic Church, in opposition to the errors of the Reformers, teaches that man's actions have a twofold signification, i.e., they have a natural significance, and a supernatural one (i.e., when the actions in question are accomplished under the impulse of God's grace). The idea that something can be "good" in man's eyes, sounds like a form of moral relativism. Actions have an objective character, they are either good or evil in their object, i.e., their natural or supernatural end.

As far as the various scriptural passages that you have quoted are concerned, you appear to be reading scripture with Calvinist presuppositions. All the passages you quoted must be read in line with the mind of the Church, for the Magisterium is the sole authentic interpreter of the word of God, whether in scripture or handed down in tradition. Thus, when scripture speaks of man's natural works as being, "unclean," or as being like, "dirty rags," etc.; the sacred texts are to be understood as referring to their lack of a supernatural significance. In other words, the scriptural texts are speaking about the actions of a man done without grace, naturally good in their object, but not meritorious supernaturally, and thus incapable of uniting man to God.

One is not permitted to hold that actions done without grace are intrinsically evil, because this viewpoint was condemned by Pope Clement XI in the Dogmatic Constitution Unigenitus.

Let me illustrate what I mean. Scripture tells us that we must honor our parents, if a man does this, even without grace, the action is in itself good, because its object is good, and so it is good in the natural order. But if is only done naturally, without the aid of God's grace, then it cannot lead a man to his true end, which is to live in communion with God, and so in that case, the act, which is good in itself, is not supernaturally good but only naturally so. Thus to honor one's parents is objectively good in itself, whether done with grace or not, but if it is done by a man under his own natural abilities alone, it cannot bring him to salvation.

The Reformers collapsed the supernatural realm into the natural realm, and so for them, anything not done with God's grace was intrinsically evil, but this is clearly false, because this idea involves the destruction of man's nature as such, and would be a form of Manichean dualism, i.e., it would make evil a substantial thing, an existing reality, rather than a negation of the good in the will of the creature. This error also involves the destruction of man as a moral agent, and because man could do nothing but sin, he would not be responsible for his actions, and this ultimately makes God the cause of sin, because God, who directly creates each man, would be creating him specifically to sin. Anyone with this view of man's nature would have to say that man sins by honoring his parents, if the honor given is not done under the power of grace, and this is nonsensical, for even if a man honors his parents only by his natural abilities, the honor given is objectively good, it is simply not supernaturally good. As St. Augustine said, "For as, on the one hand, there are certain venial sins which do not hinder the righteous man [i.e., the Christian] from the attainment of eternal life, and which are unavoidable in this life, so, on the other hand, [i]there are some [b]good works[/b] which are of no avail to an [b]ungodly man[/b] [i.e., the unregenerate man] towards the attainment of everlasting life[/i], although it would be very difficult to find the life of any very bad man whatever entirely without them [i.e., without some good works]." [St. Augustine, [u]De Spiritu et Littera[/u], chap. 48] Even an unregenerate sinner, can do some good works, that is, works that are good in their object, but not supernaturally good, because they are done without grace.

Taken from the thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14222&view=findpost&p=235633"]Question for the Total Depravity Crowd[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

my explanation has been utterly and entirely shown up.

King's to you, Fernand....

:tiphat:

[ICTHUS]

Apotheoun, you mentioned that 'such a work cannot lead a man to salvation' (i.e. a natural one)

How can works lead a man to salvation???? I thought it was faith that did that...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 25 2004, 04:52 PM']Apotheoun, you mentioned that 'such a work cannot lead a man to salvation' (i.e. a natural one)

How can works lead a man to salvation???? I thought it was faith that did that...[/quote]
ICTHUS, I'm sure you are aware of this by now, but we have totally different soteriological positions. Reformed soteriology is static, while Catholic soteriology is dynamic.

Justification is by faith and baptism, but once a man has been put into a state of grace, it follows that his actions, i.e., his works, have a supernatural value, because it is ". . . God at work in [him], both to will and to work for His good pleasure." [Philippians 2:13] Now, because a man's works are not simply his alone, anymore than the act of faith he made in Christ was simply his alone, it follows that the works performed under the power of grace, increase a man's state of justice and holiness before God. The Catholic Church holds that both faith and works are gifts of God's grace, and so, when a man who is in a state of grace acts, he does not act alone, for it is Christ acting [i]in[/i], [i]with[/i], and [i]through[/i] him in order to perform various supernaturally good works. [cf. Ephesians 2:10] All of this is possible, because once a man has been incorporated into the Body of Christ through the sacrament of Baptism, he participates in the life and energy of the Head of the Body. In other words, the Church is the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout time, and as a consequence, Christ the Head continues the work of redemption through His mystical Body. I've posted on the doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ many times already, but perhaps you didn't read those posts, so for your benefit, I'm going to repost one of them:

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 9, 2004, 8:16PM']Although I don't endorse everything in the post on suffering, I do agree that the suffering of Christ continues in His mystical Body the Church, and in each individual member, [and] in fact I wrote a paper that touched on this topic at Franciscan University. It is not so much that we suffer alone, but that Christ continues to suffer in us. In other words, He suffers in all those who have been incorporated into His mystical Body.

As St. Augustine pointed out in one of his commentaries on the Psalms, "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, 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." [Mersch, [u]The Whole Christ[/u], pages 424-425; taken from St. Augustine's, [u]Enarrationes in Psalmos[/u], Commentary on Psalm 62]

Clearly, Christ and the Church form one mystical Man, and so anything that happens to His Body, to each individual member, happens to Him. I would add that 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, provided we suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him." Jesus is the Messianic Suffering Servant, and the Church is the perpetual extension of this reality through time. If we are to be glorified with Him, we must participate in His passion.

Taken from the thread:  [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=12755&view=findpost&p=216052"]Suffering is Perfect, in Christ Jesus[/url][/quote]
ICTHUS, I would think that you of all people, because you like St. Augustine, would be familiar with Augustinian ecclesiology, but perhaps you haven't read that many of St. Augustine's writings.

God bless,
Todd

[Theoketos]

I think that it would be good to interject something right here...

[quote name='"Vertatis Splendor"']11. The statement that "There is only one who is good" thus brings us back to the "first tablet" of the commandments, which calls us to acknowledge God as the one Lord of all and to worship him alone for his infinite holiness (cf. Ex 20:2-11). The good is belonging to God, obeying him, walking humbly with him in doing justice and in loving kindness (cf.Mic 6:8). Acknowledging the Lord as God is the very core, the heart of the Law, from which the particular precepts flow and towards which they are ordered. In the morality of the commandments the fact that the people of Israel belongs to the Lord is made evident, because God alone is the One who is good. Such is the witness of Sacred Scripture, imbued in every one of its pages with a lively perception of God's absolute holiness: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts" (Is 6:3).

[b]But if God alone is the Good, no human effort, not even the most rigorous observance of the commandments, succeeds in "fulfilling" the Law, that is, acknowledging the Lord as God and rendering him the worship due to him alone (cf. Mt 4:10). [/b]This "fulfilment" can come only from a gift of God: the offer of a share in the divine Goodness revealed and communicated in Jesus, the one whom the rich young man addresses with the words "Good Teacher" (Mk 10:17; Lk 18:18). What the young man now perhaps only dimly perceives will in the end be fully revealed by Jesus himself in the invitation: "Come, follow me" (Mt 19:21). [/quote]

At the very least this will get vocabulary straight.