Oddbean new post about login | logout Indeed. It's a matter of whether sin, original or actual, can extinguish the Imago Dei within the human soul. The Imago Dei, if it remains ones nature, causes one to be in his nature good. It is not a merit nor even voluntarily accepted, but part of the nature of the person. Sin clouds and eclipses the Imago Dei such that another observing might not see goodness, truth, or beauty within, but if all goodness would cease to be in the person, existence would likewise cease, for existence itself is a good. Therefore, the human person, no matter how far gone, has goodness within. However it cannot be shown by this reasoning alone that it be necessarily enough to cooperate with grace, a separate, subsequent matter.
This doesn't quite do justice to the idea that, spiritually, we are "cursed," "blind," "dead," "children of wrath," and ultimately "enemies." It would mean there is no friendship with the enemy which would require a "putting" of enmity between her offspring and the serpent's. The only problem with the idea of "cooperating with grace" is that enemies...not only do not cooperate, they actively resist. (Which seems to be the point of the end of Romans 1.)
Without volition, there is no sin, such as animals cannot sin and those sleeping or under sufficient duress cannot sin culpably. Additionally, to cooperate with or act against grace requires volition. Volition, that is free will, is a good humans posses due to our rational nature. Therefore, in order to voluntarily cooperate with grace, we must not be totally depraved, and therefore total depravity is a false doctrine, and so the gift of sufficient volition cannot be extinguished before damnation. One may say that damnation is the final extinguishment of the grace necessary to voluntarily choose grace or to resist it.
That would be a circular argument: man must cooperate with grace and therefore if a doctrine doesn't teach the ability to cooperate then it's a false doctrine. Nowhere does Scripture teach that unregenerate man can or must "cooperate" with the grace of God. Enemies do not cooperate. We need complete rebirth (regeneration). The eating of the forbidden fruit was an act of volition which carried with it the threat of death upon the eating. "In the day that you eat of it, dying, you will die." This curse was carried out upon Adam and all his posterity (descending from him by ordinary generation). Man's will was from then forward, being cursed, bent against God. This is what it means that we are "children of wrath by nature," "enemies of God," etc. Man is completely free to choose whatever his nature desires. But the unregenerate man hates God and the things of God (again, see Romans 1 and Ephesians 2 among others). We do not "cooperate with grace" any more than Lazarus "cooperated" with the call of Christ. All he brought to the table, so to speak, was a carcass. For a fuller argument, see R. C. Sproul, [Pelagian Captivity of the Church](https://www.monergism.com/pelagian-captivity-church-0).
This is not a circular argument. It's a syllogism. Example: All men are born of a mother; Jesus is man; therefore, Jesus has a mother. This is another: to posses volition is good; cooperating with grace requires volition; therefore, to cooperate with grace one may not be totally depraved, that is lacking in all goodness. Another: cooperating with grace requires one to not be totally depraved; some men cooperate with grace; therefore, those who cooperate with grace are not and have not been totally depraved.
Our volition is cursed. To posses a cursed volition is not good.
To have any power is good. Evil is not the negative of good but its absence, so cursed volition would be less and less volition until true volition is gone. Therefore, true and absolute evil, a volition with all goodness removed, is to lock oneself away in a self-made prison, far from grace. This permanent state, that is when it is absolute, is what we call hell. We have concupiscence, true, and sin clouds and dulls the will and intellect such that it does not operate as freely as they might if pure, but this does not mean that our wills have no freedom or are fully devoid of goodness. Otherwise, man would have no power to accept the free gift of God's grace, man would have no ability to love, for love is voluntary, good, and free.
All fine and good, provided you don't claim this is the teaching of Scripture. The questions touching on good and evil are not about the having of power but the wielding of it. This conversation is about ethics, not metaphysics. Sin and righteousness are not things-in-themselves, but are ethical dispositions either toward God or against him. "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." What does it matter, what "good" is it, to "have a power" that inclines us to evil all the day long? Scripture says: > "The human heart is desperately wicked; who can know it?" Scripture says: > "...For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:9–18) Perhaps more to the point: God said: > "In the day that thou eatest of it, thou shalt surely die." So, now we come to it: "did God *really say* we would die?" Did he *really say* he would "put enmity" between us and the serpent where we had (freely) chosen friendship with him and enmity with God? Is there any "good" in friendship with the devil? At this point, as these debates always do, we resolve to the final question: to what authority should we turn to resolve all questions of doctrine and life? Rome says, "to the Magisterium." The Reformed say, "to the Scriptures." And never the two shall meet*. #SolaScriptura #SolaGratia #SolaFide #SolusChristus #SoliDeoGloria [What are the Five Solas?](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-are-the-five-solas) *unless or until the Council of Trent is rescinded, for which we pray.
This reminds me of your other post in this thread, which I've linked below. I'm interested in the question of whether sin is a substance in itself, or, as you claim in line with Reformed theologians, whether it is an ethical disposition (which, I suppose, would make it an accident associated with a human person). It would seem that grace is a substance, for it is a positive gift that brings us into union with God. By grace, Christ lives within us and unites us to Himself, and thus we are able to perform works of righteousness in and through Him. "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." (John 14:23, RSV) That indwelling of the Trinity within the human person enacts a substantial change, giving us "the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 4:24, RSV). This life in God seems to be more than a mere ethical disposition. Sin, on the other hand, would not be a substance, but a privation, because it destroys this life of God within us. Indeed, Original Sin destroyed the primordial friendship with God that Adam and Eve possessed. I agree that we'll ultimately run into the classic stand-off between Catholic and Reformed theology over the authority of the Magisterium to interpret Scripture, though I would disagree that there is no meeting point. We Catholics would certainly agree that all doctrine must accord with Scripture, but, of course, we would disagree that it is an authority that can stand on its own, without a living body to teach and interpret it. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpmdfdjun4mxavxk7ps0e62lal9d8uak0rj5fsgxr3ehye6j4crq9qyw8wumn8ghj7cmgwf5hxarsd9kxctnwdaehgu339e3k7mf0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzpfevd2ypyu3fr4xy74qdnjgwhh7eypt5u2jcllc59fmdrdlccva6yuju4n
That's more or less what I think as well. The goodness, imho, also applies to the human body. Though the body is the place where we experience pain and the endness of our existence the clearest, "the body, in fact, and only the body, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It has been created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the mystery hidden from eternity in God, and thus to be a sign of it” (TOB 19:4). As JPII so eloquently put it!
Eloquent and apt! God made all and what He made He called "good," and additionally the Son took on flesh, so the body itself is naturally good and supernaturally elevated. Since the body is one part in the union that is the human person, it cannot be said that any living human person has no good in him.
That sounds wonderful, except Scripture says "children of wrath by nature." It says, "Christ died for the ungodly."
The ungodly are on their way to hell but are not yet there. As long as a man breaths, Christ can save him. With his final breath, one may have contrition for his life of sin, repent, and freely choose to cooperate with grace, accepting the gift God so desires to give, which is life. A soul devoid of all goodness is unable to freely accept that gift and God's grace, therefore those who have any chance of salvation, they are not yet totally depraved.
A man is only free to choose what his nature desires. Our natures are cursed from birth. We are not "sick," we are not merely "uneducated," we don't need a mere "helping hand" or a "push in the right direction"--we need rebirth. We need to be "ransomed." We need to be "redeemed."
Is forgiveness accepted or merely thrust upon us by God's grace?
Grace destroys the disposition to resist. We then see, and desire, as we ought. And in doing so, we turn from sin and toward God. Before the grace of God gives us this new birth, we are as Lazarus in the tomb. When the call comes, we awake--realize we are in the dark, surrounded by death, disease, and decay--we realize we no longer belong there, and freely leave our self-made tomb to come to Christ--we come then to the light of day, to fresh air, to new life, to the presence of Christ. We leave behind the gravecloths. But we cannot "freely choose" something that is contrary to our own will. The curse reversed our ethical "polarity" such that we are pointed due South, away from God. We hate God. We repress the clear revelation of him in creation and conscience. But then, the grace of God--far from "forcing the needle Northward"--supernaturally changes the very nature of our "magnet," reversing our polarity such that we "by nature" begin to point due North again. This *monergistic regeneration* (to insert a terminological shortcut in order to save a paragraph long explanation) results in repentance and faith. It is, first to last, a gift of God. We contribute nothing--therefore God gets all the glory (Soli Deo Gloria!).
"Grace destroys the disposition to resist." This makes sense to me. At this point, then, would you say that grace compels us to repent and seek God? Or, like Lazarus brought back to life, are we free to stay in the tomb if we so wish?
I'll chime in briefly here to say that this is where the doctrine of irisistable grace comes in. The grace compels us to repent, yes. Lazarus having the option to stay in the tomb seems like conjecture. Plausible conjecture, maybe, but the way the narrative reads, Christ calls and Lazarus obeys. He is compelled to come forth from the tomb at the command of Christ.
At the same time, those who answered the call still have the opportunity to reject. Case in point, Judas chose to betray Christ, and seemed to not repent, whereas Simon Peter denied Christ and then repented. If the grace was irresistible, how were those two able to then reject it, even if temporarily in the case of Simon Peter? The analogy of Lazarus in the tomb is not suggested by the Scriptures, though because Scripture is used to make it, people seem to find it compelling. I believe it is incorrect.
Good question. I will say up front that I am not going to provide the most satisfactory answer here for lack of sufficient time and space to dig in in a way that does the question justice. And because a lot of this hinges on election, which is a conversation in itself. The shorthand response is that those God has elected before the ages began, he calls, and they are compelled by his gracious call to respond in faith and repentance. Not all those who hear the call of Christ respond in faith. That is not an argument against iridistible grace but rather a confirmation that salvation is tied to election. Judas showed by his fruit that he never truly believed, which means he was not elect. He *responded* to the call to follow Christ but we see even before his betrayal that he never truly turned from his sin. Peter, by contrast, does deny Jesus but his repentance is one among many evidences that, unlike Judas, he is among the elect. You shall know them by their fruit. The sewer and the seeds parable is one instructive place in the Scriptures to help illustrate these points. The Canons of Dort are instructive as well, particularly Article 8 and onward.
It presupposes the permanence of salvation, or eternal security, which is not something suggested by the Scriptures, nor the writings of the early Church. It was not suggested in Scripture that Judas did not truly believe, but that is rather a reading into the Scriptures based on those preconceived notions. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-salvation-be-lost
You are right, the Bible doesn't suggest eternal security...it explicitly states it haha. Here are merely a few examples: John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." John 6:39-40 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of hall that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:47 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And rI will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, s‘And they will all be taught by God.’ uEveryone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." Romans 8:38-39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. " Ephesians 1:12-14 "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee4 of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." 2 Corinthians 1:22 "And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Again I also point you to the Canons of Dort which addresses this soteriological issue. Thanks for sharing the article. I will read it when I have a availability and try to respond further.
The Scriptures never say that one who has gained forgiveness for his sins can himself never leave God. None of those references say that. From Hebrews 6: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt." The very idea of apostacy in the ideology of eternal security must mean the apostate never believed, never truly became partakers of the Holy Spirit, but the inspired author of Hebrews says precisely the opposite without saying that they never truly believed. Some who do become partakers may reject and apostatize. The verse you shared that comes closest is Romans 8:38-39. Although it sounds absolute to include the potential apostate himself, it doesn't. These are external things. It does not say "or height, nor depth, [nor we,] nor anything else in all creation." It would be tantamount to the addition of the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. To receive is a choice, and to reject likewise. Otherwise, there is no such thing as sin.
We have to ask who is ultimately sovereign. If God wants you saved, can you stop Him? If yes, YOU are ultimately sovereign in that matter. If no, then He is indeed sovereign. And it's clear from scripture that He knows his own sheep and "no one [including us] can take them out of my hand." We are indeed presented with a choice, we are not automatons, but in our state of sin we will only ever chose sin. Grace provides us with the choice not to sin. “We love him because he first loved us”. We are “saved by grace through faith” and this is the “free gift of God”. He knows his sheep and he will “keep” them to the end. It's in light of that belief that we then approach individual passages like Heb. 6 and ask "what does 'have tasted' mean? Firstly, it doesn't mean full, saving faith. It means those who have experienced and seen aspects of the visible church but not themselves truly entered in. It also means literally tasted, as in communion. Further, when contextualized, the specific audience/recipients of the letter were of the generation that crucified the Christ and were forgiven for it. To reject him again and return to the old covenant is tantamount to crucifying him again (striking the Rock twice, as Moses typologically shows us). Hebrews divorced from its first century context and the coming destruction in 70AD has a face value reading of being universally applied and presents all kinds of wild implications. I enjoy these debates and discussions and enjoy learning from and being sharpened by my brothers, especially those in other traditions. That said, it seems to me that this particular discussion comes down to fundamental differences in Roman Catholic and Protestant soteriology and I don’t think that either of us will budge much because of a Nostr thread.
Also, re: the point about no one teaching eternal security/preservation of the saints prior to the Reformation. I'm not well versed in Augustine but he wrote on it. See Treatise on the Gift of Perserverence, IX.
"Grace destroys the disposition to resist." This would suggest that when grace enters into the heart, sin can no longer remain. This is only true of complete saints, but we on earth do sin and often fall from grace. Therefore, the work of sanctification is not instant but a gradual reality. The desire for that which is evil is a disordered desire for a lesser good over and above a greater good, such as placing the pleasure of food the proportionality of good nutrition, potentially resulting in gluttony. No one desires evil for the fact that it is evil, but out of distortion. Total depravity depends on the inability of the human person to freely choose and accept the gift God offers and instead suggests He picks those whom He desires to save or not, which means that those who are not saved never truly had the option to choose, and this means it was not truly voluntary, which means they were not culpable of said rejection of grace. Sin is to choose evil, fundamentally, but if one has no choice it cannot be actually culpable sin. Total depravity has no basis, for the basis that might be reveals itself to be self-contradictory.
Absolutely, the human body truly is a vessel for experiencing both the physical and spiritual aspects of our existence. Do you think our bodies play a crucial role in connecting us to the divine? #DeepThoughts #Spirituality
God made our bodies, the second person the the Trinity took on flesh and dwelt among us, died bodily for our sins, and rose bodily. God the Spirit lives within those who believe (our bodies are now his temple). He has stipulations around how we use these bodies he made. We take communion bodily. And ultimately we will be resurrected with new bodies that will never die again, in the same fashion as our Lord. So yeah, the body is very crucial in connecting us to the divine :)