At It Again...

I don't know why, but I seem to be like a moth drawn to the flame when it comes to theological debates with Protestants. I think part of me honestly desires to convert as many people to The Church as possible, but there's another part that I think just wants to justify my own faith in her. And still, there's another part that's just plain argumentative, and always has been.

Anyway, due to all of that, and probably a strange, morbid curiosity to see if Jacob would ever continue our debate, I continue to peek in on his blog from time to time. Recently, he did a post on "The Doctrine of Sin and Total Depravity." I posted a question there, innocently enough, because "Total Depravity" is defined in different ways by different groups. A Reformed Calvinist has a vastly different idea than a Pentecostal. Since I know Jacob doesn't necessarily agree with the Arminian Pentecostal notions of theology, but doesn't subscribe completely to all Calvin had to say, either, I wondered what he thought about this doctrine. So I asked,

I'm somewhat curious as to "how depraved is depraved?" You address the universality of original sin, but don't delve too deep into its effects on the soul. I agree that our human nature is, before regeneration, corrupted by original sin. I agree with Total Depravity in the sense that all humanity suffers from this depravity except for an act of God's Grace, and also that this corruption affects every part of man's life.

But I disagree with "Total Depravity" if by it you mean that man is so totally corrupt that he can do nothing good at all, but that any good act that he might do is itself sinful automatically. No good act on the part of unregenerate man can gain grace or salvation, this is true. But this does not mean that all actions of unregenerate man are themselves sinful.

That's my 2 cents.
God bless
Gregory

Jacob replied, reasonably enough,

Total depravity as I understand it means we have no natural desire to seek after Godly things nor God Himself, and that all our good deeds are filthy wrags without having Christ as our savior.

Someone could be boy scout of the year and still be totally depraved and in the flesh. But I wouldn't say that a lost person is incapable of doing something that is beneficial or good in a temporal sense.

But the point is without the redeeming act of Christ's atonement by His grace in your life you are unable to do anything that will impact your eternity positively.

I agree with mostly all of this, and was not going to really get into a debate over it. Honest I wasn't. But Chris Freeman (still a Lutheran, who have their own spin on the idea as well, pondered,

How far do we go with Total Depravity, however? I mean, if we are totally, and in all ways depraved, how do we know? Wouldn't that be information beyond depravity, and locked away from our entirely abject selves?

Maybe a silly question...

Christopher

I further inquired of Jacob, to clarify his above response:

Amen to all (except you still seemed a bit ambiguous about whether the good deeds of an unregenerate person are literally counted as sinful). We absolutely and totally agree on everything else though.

Jacob replied to both Chris and I with answers with which I wholeheartedly agree:

Christopher,

I don't think we do know at all and would not find out if it weren't for the work of God in our hearts to reveal our sin and need for a savior. And even then we still have no idea how deep the depravity of man has truly gone. But God's word (perhaps even or especially His law) reveals this problem of depravity to us.

Gregory, I don't know that I would say the good deeds of those who are depraved are sinful, but they offer no profit to those who are still dead in their sin.

I replied to this, saying I agree with that, as well, but clarifying as well the heterodox teaching of John Calvin on the subject:

Jacob, I agree with that, too. But the extreme position on Total Depravity, especially as taught by John Calvin (whom, I believe, coined the phrase), is that all righteous acts of an unregenerate person are themselves sinful.

I disagree with that, though I would say that even the righteous acts of an unregenerate person are still themselves somehow gifts of God's grace. But I do agree wholeheartedly that good works by anyone done without the regenerating Grace of God are of zero merit to salvation.

Now here's where things start to deteriorate, and the new debate sprung from. David (Mark 1:17) popped up in full-blooded Calvinist mode, and defended the teaching of Total Depravity that I defined above. His words will be in black.

Can a person who is not Right with God, do a "Righteous" act?

Righteousness: Dikaioma -- an ordinance, a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, a righteous deed

(from) Dikaioo -- to show to be righteous, declare righteous

(from) Dikaios -- correct, righteous, innocent

(from) Dike -- right (as self-evident), justice (the principle, a decision or its execution)

If sin is a part of our very nature, Romans 3:10 "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
And Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

We are only justified (brought into a right/righteous relationship) through Christ Jesus. Romans 3:24-26 "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sin. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

This is total depravity!
No one seeks God...they cannot!
The key is No one understands!!!

It is not about us...If we are in Christ it is because he has chosen us from before the foundations of the world.
The Bible teaches both Election and Free will equally!
We cannot understand how these two fit together, but God does.
Deut 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

If no one understands and only the elect can have the mind of Christ, then the world is indeed totaly depraved!
They sin, but they have no understanding of why they sin, they don't even know that they are sinning! "No one Understands."

Yes, people can do things that are good...but everything is affected by sin.
Just because someone does something like, walking grandma across the street...doesn't make that a righteous act.
Unless that act is done for the Glory of God, it is an unrighteous act.
And God does use these act for the Good of those who love Him...in fact:
Eph 1:11-12 "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."
Romans 8:28 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."

Only those who are Righteous -- declared Righteous through Jesus Christ can perform a righteous act, because it honors and glorifies Jesus Christ.
All others my do something good by human standards, but because of sin it is tainted. These people can't seek after God, they don't understand, they are not righteous!

God calls His elect into Christ Jesus and enlightens them with His Truth and through Jesus Christ the Elect are declared Righteous.

Thus total depravity is a complete rejection of God, for they do not know Him.
All who are in Christ Jesus were at one point totaly depraved, but have been call into His Marvelous Light.
1 Peter 2:4-10
"As you come to Him, a libing stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.' So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.' They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were DESTINED to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

In Christ,

David

I, trying to actually avert another big debate, appealed to Jacob's good judgement to realise the error of this interpretation of Scripture, and rather ignored David at this point:

Hey Jacob, what David said--that's what I meant about "even good acts done by unregenerate people are objectively sinful." That's in a nutshell what I disagree with.

Thanks for clearing that up, David.

However, my confidence in Jacob was lessened when he said,

Of course David presents a good case. One that made me have to stop and think. I guess the question would be can an act be purely nuetral? Or must an act be either good or evil, black and white. David made some good points, I'll have to give further thought to his arguement.

That, there, is why we need a Living Tradition to guide our Faith--because otherwise, we are unsteady, tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine (cf Ephesians 4:11-14). David pounced:

Gregory,

You disagree...that is o.k.

But Biblically, on what grounds do you disagree?
Where does the Bible teach that an unregenerate person is "Righteous" or can do a "Righteous Act"?

In Human standards people can deffinately do nice things for others...but it isn't about us!
We are the minor charators in God's Story.
If someone does something nice for someone else, but completely rejects God...that nice thing amounts to nothing in God's eyes. (based on the Biblical texts in my previous comment)

I would be very interested in seeing Biblical texts supporting your view. So that I can take them into consideration. I have not been able to find any Biblical texts to support that the human race is not Totally Depraved.

I see Total Depravity as a complete separation and rejection of God (the state all of humanity is currently in because of Adam, Save for those who are Regenerate in Christ Jesus).
So, if the Bible says, "No one is Righteous, no, not one."
How can we (Biblically) say anything different?

In Christ,

David

Not only does David instantly attempt to play by the "Sola Scriptura" standard, but he also seems to completely miss the point. I'm not saying that an unregenerate person is righteous or can do righteous things. I'm simply saying that when an unregenerate person does something that is objectively good, that objectively good act is not somehow sinful! I attempted to clarify:

David, I never said that I believed that an unregenerate person was "righteous" or that he could perform a "righteous" act in the sense that he could somehow do something that would merit grace or salvation.

I simply deny, on the grounds of reason, that every act, no matter what it is, that an unregenerate person does, is itself sinful.

Can an unsaved person do something without sinning? Yes. Can that non-sinful action cause him to be righteous? No. Is that non-sinful action technically "righteous"? Yes. Does that person's "righteousness" equal anything more than a pile of filthy rags compared to the infinite, surpassing righteousness of God? No.

I am not saying that it is possible for an unregenerate man to never sin. What I am saying is that it is possible for an unregenerate man to once in a while do something that is not sinful. There is a difference.

Our depravity is the death of the spiritual life within us. We have been cut off from God, and on our own, cannot be resurrected to a state that has Communion with Him. We cannot save ourselves, because we are dead. Jesus came that we might have life. On these things we agree, and no one would say otherwise without being heretical. However, the discussion was simply on the rather abstract (but crucial to understanding human nature) point of whether such a person, cut off from God, was "sinning" by simply lying in bed and breathing, or by being the best parent that he could and earning an honest living, or any of the other normal, humdrum things that we do every day of our lives whether we are regenerate or not. Am I, a Christian, not sinning while brushing my teeth, while, on the other hand, my brother, who is unsaved, is sinning by brushing his teeth?

Luther and Calvin both taught that my brother, unless he became a Christian, every time he brushed his teeth or ate his dinner or did anything else for that matter, was sinning in doing it, because to them, that is what the doctrine of "Total Depravity" meant. That's how depraved they thought human beings were.

I disagree.

David continued,

Gregory,

It is your right to disagree with men, and how men view others.


However, my question was:
"So, if the Bible says, "No one is Righteous, no, not one."
How can we (Biblically) say anything different?" and
"I would be very interested in seeing Biblical texts supporting your view. So that I can take them into consideration. I have not been able to find any Biblical texts to support that the human race is not Totally Depraved."

Let me rephrase the question:
"How does the God of the Bible view the Human race and Humans as individuals who are outside of His Son Jesus Christ?"
"Is there Biblical text to support you view? And if so, what is it, that I may take it under concideration?"

I have not found the Biblical evidence to support your view.

In Christ,

David

I retorted,

David, contrariwise, I have not found a passage in Scripture that claims that a good or even neutral act, done by an unsaved person, is itself objectively sinful. You've quoted much scripture to the effect that we can never do enough good to save ourselves, and that we are in a sinful state, but none that say that everything a man does is itself sinful.

Take for example, your classic text from Isaiah: "All our righteousness is as filthy rags". This is not saying that we are not righteous, but that our righteousness compared to the righteousness of God pales infinitely. More, a righteousness (and notice that Isaiah doesn't say our "sin" is as filthy rags, but our "righteousness". It is acknowledged as good) that is filthy rags is not going to save us. But it is not itself sinful.

Romans 3:10 is patently false if you take it literalistically, for all men have it put into their very beings to seek for God. Paul, again quoting Isaiah, whose prophecies were written poetically, is using hyperbole to make his point. Again, that point is is that there is a clear way to salvation, and short of God's Grace, we won't find it. But he is not saying, again, that every single act of the non-believer is itself a sinful act.

The problem with the doctrine of Total Depravity the way the Reformers would have it, is that Sin effects our nature causing men to by nature be evil. But then, each new person born is born by nature evil. In other words, God is creating something evil.

Since God is not the author of evil or of sin, then Total Depravity is false, since that is the only conclusion of this teaching.

Rather, through the sin of Adam and Eve, their state of being, of possessing those qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life, were lost to them, and to us. We were born in the state of sin, which is spiritual separation from God. But our nature is still good, and thus, we can do good things. Yes, because our state is sinful, we have what's called "concupiscence" or the desire to sin. The unregenerate person is a slave to this concupiscence, because he is devoid of the necessary spiritual life to really fight against it. But those times that he does a good thing, it is good, and not sin (and it is in these times that still, mysteriously and mercifully, the grace of God is causing the goodness. It's called "prevenient" or "beforecoming" grace, because its grace that God bestows before we come to Him).

Basically, in an ironic twist, the Calvinist doctrine of "Total Depravity" makes God the Author of Evil and Sin, and at the same time, by logical extension, excludes us from a true culpability. If it is our nature to sin, then we cannot help but sin any more than fire can help but burn.

On the other hand, if it is not our nature that is sinful, but sin is rather a detraction or a corruption of that nature, something apart form it and something alien to who we are created to be, then choosing to participate in that sin is indeed something that we are gravely guilty and responsible for. And, at the same time, understanding this we realise truly that God is not the author of sin, but that each of us chooses it.

And David, since no one bothered to demonstrate and prove that "Scripture Alone" is a valid doctrine, you really can't expect me, who doesn't believe it, to argue from it, can you?

I on the other hand could simply say, "Show me from Church Tradition that Total Depravity is true."

God bless
Gregory

I had honestly thought that that cleared up the position sufficiently as to be the final word on the subject. When a few days had passed with no further comment, I was prepared to move on. But today David replied at some length:

Gregory,

If you do something that is not to the Glory of God the Father, can that be considered a "Righteous" act?
May it Never be!

If I being a Regenerate person in Christ Jesus, brush my teeth (and because I am Regenerate, it would be for the Glory of God...because all that I do would be for His Glory because I am His), I am not sinning.
However, If my friend who is not Regenerate in Christ Jesus, brushes his teeth (and because He is not Regenerate, is not doing it for God's Glory...because He doesn't know God...He doesn't seek God [Psalm 14:1-3 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand (act wisely), who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." and Psalm 53:1-3 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand (act wisely), who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." And if my friend can't seek after God, he can't Glorify God in any action that he performs.) Because He is not doing it for the Glory of God, it would seperate him from God, therefore is sin.

Gregory, You contradict yourself by trying to mesh mans doctrine with Gods doctrine:
First you say, "This is not saying that we are not righteous, but that our righteousness compared to the righteousness of God pales infinitely."

Then you say, "Rather, through the sin of Adam and Eve, their state of being, of possessing those qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life, were lost to them, and to us."

Which is it? Do we have a "Righteousness of our own (as in your first statement) or have we lost it through Adam and Eve (as in your second statement)?

If we have lost it throught the fall, then this statement that you made, "If it is our nature to sin, then we cannot help but sin any more than fire can help but burn." Would be correct!

Another example: You said, "Rather, through the sin of Adam and Eve, their state of being, of possessing those qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life, were lost to them, and to us."
Their state of being! That is their Nature!!!! Of possessing the qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life were lost to them, and to us!!!!!!!!!

But then you contradict yourself by saying, "On the other hand, if it is not our nature that is sinful, but sin is rather a detraction or a corruption of that nature, something apart form it and something alien to who we are created to be, then choosing to participate in that sin is indeed something that we are gravely guilty and responsible for."
So now, sin did not affect our nature, but rather it is an outside force that we can choose to participate in???

No, No, No, Sin is at the very core of our nature through the fall!
God did not create the sin, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and thus brought sin into the very nature of every person born of natural means....that is of the flesh!

Christ was born of divine means through a Virgin...He would be excluded from this!
All those who are Born Again into Christ are also now excluded, but can choose to obey or to sin.

Mans doctrine cannot mix with Gods doctrine!

Gregory, as to you comment about Sola Scriptura...I never asked you to step into Sola Scriptura as a deffense for your position, however, being that you claim to believe what the Bible says, you should be able to use it to back up you stance!
Also, The Bible is the Christians "Text Book" (so to say) for life. Everything we need to live this life, and live life to the Glory of God the Father is contained within its pages.
You want proof for Sola Scripture?
God Wrote a Book! It's called the Bible!
If that is not proof enough, that it's Author is God himself...then I fear for you.

In Christ,

David

I see now that I did not as fully or as adequately explain the Church's teaching as I had thought. As such, I offered a thorough, point-by-point reply. However, my reply at Jacob's is somewhat different than here, since I had accidentally misread David's post. I'll make a note of the edit, for the record:

Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,

If you do something that is not to the Glory of God the Father, can that be considered a "Righteous" act?
May it Never be!

No, not in the sense that it will earn favour with God or in any way satisfy the debt of sin against you. But that does not make the act itself sinful.

If I being a Regenerate person in Christ Jesus, brush my teeth (and because I am Regenerate, it would be for the Glory of God...because all that I do would be for His Glory because I am His), I am not sinning.

This is flat out ridiculous. Being regenerate equals everything you do being to the glory of God?! That would imply that nothing that you do would be sinful, which certainly does contradict Scripture (1 John 1:8)!

However, If my friend who is not Regenerate in Christ Jesus, brushes his teeth (and because He is not Regenerate, is not doing it for God's Glory...because He doesn't know God...He doesn't seek God [Psalm 14:1-3 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand (act wisely), who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." and Psalm 53:1-3 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand (act wisely), who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." And if my friend can't seek after God, he can't Glorify God in any action that he performs.) Because He is not doing it for the Glory of God, it would seperate him from God, therefore is sin.

This logic, I guess, would flow from the above logic...except that since the above logic doesn't work out, neither does this. A person who does not seek God, or honour God, commits that sin. Doing other acts (which by nature have nothing explicitly to do with God or against God) do not compound that sin, unless they are themselves sinful.

As for no one seeking God, what about passages like Isaiah 60, where all the nations come to Israel to seek Him? Since verse 6 is a direct prophecy of the wisemen (who themselves were Zoroastrian astrologers), it's certain that at least three people in history "sought God". Were they regenerate before or after they worshipped Jesus--and how do you know?

More, I have a book at home that outlines that even religious texts as far away as China prophesied the coming of one who would save us from our sins (and the Chinese believed that one would come from the West, and that His religion would dominate theirs--as we see happening even today, in Communist China where the Church is experiencing massive growth!) as well as Roman and Greek prophecies to the same effect. Thus, God has not left the world without a witness, and without an expectation of Christ. So someone was seeking Him. Would the ones who wrote these prophecies have sinned in writing them, since they weren't "regenerate"? Or, if they were regenerate, wouldn't that open the door to some sort of universalism?

Gregory, You contradict yourself by trying to mesh mans doctrine with Gods doctrine:
First you say, "This is not saying that we are not righteous, but that our righteousness compared to the righteousness of God pales infinitely."

Then you say, "Rather, through the sin of Adam and Eve, their state of being, of possessing those qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life, were lost to them, and to us."

Which is it? Do we have a "Righteousness of our own (as in your first statement) or have we lost it through Adam and Eve (as in your second statement)?

[I removed reference here to what I thought was a typographical quotation error in David's post] I think in fairness, before you just out and out say that I "contradicted" myself, you might allow the graceful assumption that I didn't articulate my point very well. [And here.]

To that extent, allow me to attempt to clarify.

First of all, Isaiah 64 (actually, beginning with 63:7-64:11) is a lamenting meditation of the unfaithfulness of Israel to their covenant with God. Isaiah 64:5 (the "righteousness is like filthy rags" verse) is actually Isaiah's repentant admittance of guilt. It is not universal in scope, and is certainly not saying that all righteous acts are worthless, or that all people do worthless righteous acts.

So I withdraw my argumentative alternate interpretation of that passage, which seemed in the end self-contradictory to you, and simply submit that that passage has nothing at all to do with our present discussion.

Moving on, though, let's examine what I actually said:

Rather, through the sin of Adam and Eve, their state of being, of possessing those qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life, were lost to them, and to us. We were born in the state of sin, which is spiritual separation from God. But our nature is still good, and thus, we can do good things. Yes, because our state is sinful, we have what's called "concupiscence" or the desire to sin. The unregenerate person is a slave to this concupiscence, because he is devoid of the necessary spiritual life to really fight against it. But those times that he does a good thing, it is good, and not sin (and it is in these times that still, mysteriously and mercifully, the grace of God is causing the goodness. It's called "prevenient" or "beforecoming" grace, because its grace that God bestows before we come to Him).

When I refered to Adam and Eve's "innate righteousness" that we later lost, what I meant was that, in their state of Created Grace, in the fullness of the Spiritual Life that was conditional on their obedience (thus, not a part of their nature, since what we are by nature is not conditional on obedience, but on existence, but I'll discuss that distinction later, when you bring it up), they did not have to choose to act righteously. They simply were righteous, because they were innocent and pure and sinless. This state of innocence, as I said, was conditional upon their obedience. It could be lost, and it was. But that did not make them by nature evil, because what is natural to something is reproduced in procreation. Since procreation literally means cooperating in creation (with God), and since God creates all things good, our nature must therefore still be good. However, through Adam and Eve's disobedience, we are born in a state of slavery to sin. As such we are born devoid of the spiritual communion, the spiritual life, with God that was our state, dependent upon obedience. We were also born subject to Concupiscence, which is the inordinate desire within us to seek our own wills before God's. But concupiscence is never so powerful as to eliminate our free will to choose. However, we will only really want to choose God's will over ours through an act of His Grace. This grace, given before we are saved, is known as "prevenient" grace, because, it comes "before" regeneration.

So no, there is no contradiction in saying that Isaiah 64:5 isn't saying we aren't righteous or can't be righteous, and in saying that in the Fall, Adam and Eve lost for us that innate righteousness, because by "innate righteousnes, I simply meant that automatic innocent, sinless state into which they were created, and, on the other hand, as I demonstrated, Isaiah 64:5 is in no way saying what you want it to say.

If we have lost it throught the fall, then this statement that you made, "If it is our nature to sin, then we cannot help but sin any more than fire can help but burn." Would be correct!

No, because the Fall did not affect our nature, but our state. If we were by nature evil, then either Adam and Eve were created Evil, or God, through procreation after their corrupted nature, would participate in the creation of evil. Either one of these conclusions is wrong, and indeed, blasphemous.

But if God created Adam and Eve good (indeed, according to Genesis, "Very Good"), and created them in a state of innocence that depended on their continued obedience, then when they disobeyed, their state changed from innocent to sinful, and the supernatural graces that belong to the state of innocence are no longer theirs, nor ours, in our fallen state.

Another example: You said, "Rather, through the sin of Adam and Eve, their state of being, of possessing those qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life, were lost to them, and to us."
Their state of being! That is their Nature!!!! Of possessing the qualities of inate righteousness and spiritual life were lost to them, and to us!!!!!!!!!

No, David, "State" and "nature" are not the same thing. take an example from nature: water. Water is by nature two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom. It is by nature colourless. However, water can exist in three entirely different states while retaining (to a more or less obvious degree) those three qualities of its nature. As a solid (ice) water is still H2O, and it is still colourless. As a liquid, water is still H2O, and still colourless. As a vapour, water is still H2O, and it is still colourless. In all three states, the nature of water remains the same.

Similar to the natural example of water, we as humans have a nature (that which makes us human), but we exist in different spiritual states (three, in fact, just like water). Our nature is a physical body and a spiritual soul, created in the image and likeness of God, and created "good." The three states are Innocence, Sin, and Grace. In the Innocent state, Adam and Eve were as I described them above. The state of innocence was contingent upon their obedience to God's will, just as water's existing in the state of vapour is contingent upon its temperature remaining above 100 degrees C. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, they forsook that state of innocence, and became subject to the state of Sin, due to their separation from God--just as water becomes ice when its temperature, in the absence of heat, drops to below 0 degrees. However, we are still by nature a body and a soul, created in God's image, and created "Good". But we are trapped in the cold, hard, deadness of sin, unable to free ourselves--unable to draw closer to the heat of God's love. But God came to us, through Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty for our sin, and redeem us out of the state of slavery to it. Our responding to His Grace melts that ice and brings us into the State of Grace, where our Spiritual Life is restored. However, we are not yet perfected, and still must struggle against concupiscence and the desire for sin. But through God's Grace, we can be obedient and remain in the State of Grace, just as water is liquid when it is above 0 degrees, but not yet vapour until it is above 100 degrees. In the final Consummation of our lives, either through our death or the Last Judgement, we who have been faithful droplets of Graced humanity, alive in Christ, are again brought to the State of Innocence, or the State of Perfection, where sin no longer will have any hold on us!

I trust my lengthly analogy has demonstrated the distinct difference between "nature" and "state". It is a crucial distinction, because it shows how we can be born without the life of Grace in us, without God having created us sinful.

But then you contradict yourself by saying, "On the other hand, if it is not our nature that is sinful, but sin is rather a detraction or a corruption of that nature, something apart form it and something alien to who we are created to be, then choosing to participate in that sin is indeed something that we are gravely guilty and responsible for."
So now, sin did not affect our nature, but rather it is an outside force that we can choose to participate in???

Not in the sense that one in the State of Sin is free to choose or not to choose, because he is subject in slavery to that sin. However, to be a slave is not a person's nature, but an unfortunate state in which he finds himself. Only by Grace can such a one do an act of goodness, but tha Grace does not itself have to be regenerative Grace. After all, it was God's will that the Babylonians punish the Israelites for their rebellion--but God neither in His Grace caused the Babylonians to sin, nor to be saved, in their dealings with Israel. The Babylonians were still unregenerate, even though God caused them to do good to Israel by bringing them to repentance through their exile.

No, No, No, Sin is at the very core of our nature through the fall!

I disagree, and see no evidence that the Bible would describe sin in those terms. Sin is not the core of our being any more than slavery or death are. Sin is compared to slavery and to death again and again in the Bible--but while we are subject to all three in our sinful state, they are not what we were meant to be by nature.

God did not create the sin,

Absolutely not! But it is the logical conclusion of the "sin is our nature" argument.

Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and thus brought sin into the very nature of every person born of natural means....that is of the flesh!

Yes, but since God still participates in the creation of new life (human beings contribute the genetics, but God makes the soul), either the soul is pure while the body is by nature sinful (which is Gnosticism), or God is at least the co-creator of evil (which is blasphemy)!

Christ was born of divine means through a Virgin...He would be excluded from this!

But that Virgin (following your Protestant stance on the matter) would herself be sinful. Moreover, since she contributed at least half (though, since God is immaterial, more like all) of Christ's physical substance, anyway, and if human nature was evil, then that nature would have to have been contributed. But since it was not nature but state Christ could indeed have become Fully Human, but not share in our sinful state. If we are by nature evil, and Christ became one of us, except for that, then He would not, could not have been Fully Human.

All those who are Born Again into Christ are also now excluded, but can choose to obey or to sin.

Amen! Because Christ redeemed us from Slavery to sin. Again, we are not slaves by nature but by state. Saying that someone, by nature, is a slave, borders more on ideas like Karma, that leads to such atrocities like the Caste system in India.

Mans doctrine cannot mix with Gods doctrine!

Indeed not. I hope that I have shown how your human tradition's interpretation of Scripture can only lead to one heresy or another when it comes to God's character, or Christ's Natures.

Gregory, as to you comment about Sola Scriptura...I never asked you to step into Sola Scriptura as a deffense for your position, however, being that you claim to believe what the Bible says, you should be able to use it to back up you stance!

I could use it to back up my claims. However, there is no need to, since reason itself shows the flaws in your interpretations and how they lead to contradictory and circular ideas about the nature of God and Jesus Christ.

Further, even if I did use Scripture (in a measure more than providing an alternate understanding of the Scripture you provided), you would simply not agree, and we would still get nowhere. After all, I provided ample Scripture in the past in my defence of Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith and Works, ample Scripture in opposition of Scripture Alone, ample Scripture in support of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the theology of Baptismal Regeneration, and even of the Papacy and Church Hierarchy--all of which were dismissed.

So, quite honestly, the history of our discussions leaves me disinclined to play the game that way.

Also, The Bible is the Christians "Text Book" (so to say) for life. Everything we need to live this life, and live life to the Glory of God the Father is contained within its pages.
You want proof for Sola Scripture?
God Wrote a Book! It's called the Bible!

Since the Book that God wrote points beyond itself to a Church and an authoritative Tradition, no, the fact that we have Sacred, God-Inspired writings are not proof enough that those same writings are all we need.

Further, the fact that throughout history, all the heretical groups have held to some notion of Scripture Alone to support their heresies further leads me to question the authority of that doctrine.

The fact of a multiplicity of opinions and doctrines without an Authoritative Arbiter within Protestantism today further demonstrates that the Bible Alone is not enough.

And Finally, if the fact that God wrote a Book is allegedly enough to rely on it as Sole Authority, then why is the fact that Christ founded an indefectable Church to teach the world the Gospel not sufficient enough to belong to that Church? Why is the fact that God through Christ instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as the nourishment of His Body and Blood not enough to participate in that Sacrifice and believe in its Truth?

So I'm sorry, your logic is sorely wanting.

If that is not proof enough, that it's Author is God himself...then I fear for you.

If that same proof is not enough to make you Catholic--that the founder of Catholicism is God Himself--or not enough to make you believe in the Real Presence, that the Bread and Wine are no longer bread and wine, but Jesus Himself, then why should you have more fear for me, than I for you?

But I fear for you not for those things, but more because your theology, as outlined above, leads to great theological and christological heresies!

In Christ,
Gregory