Mercy

[Qoheleth]

he image of God is never completely erased.

We are completely depraved (complete depravity means depraved, corrupted in each area, yet not totally).

If we would not bear God's image any longer, there would be nothing to save

Well, Ed, I agree with you here.

[FONT=&quot]I believe it is important to note that when you study Article I of the FC, you will see some very careful distinctions made. "Even after the fall this nature still is and remains a creature of God." And so there is a huge distinction between human nature, which is good and God's handiwork, and the corruption that inheres in that nature after the fall through original sin. The sin is distinguished from the good creation of God. If my body has a fever, it HAS a fever but is NOT that fever.


Q

[/FONT]

 

[Melethiel]

In the sense that no one can save themselves, ok.

But not in the usual Refomed sense.


Q

Granted, but she wasn't asking about the Reformed sense.

 

[Edial]

Very well said.

 

[Edial]

This is a false statement.


Mary did not ask about Calvinism, or any other collection of errors, she asked "Do y'all believe in total depravity because of original sin?" She asked this in a Lutheran forum, and I presume, expected a Lutheran answer.

The correct answer is "Yes".

Total depravity does not mean that people are as bad as possible, it does not mean that there is nothing "left over" from his image of God. What it does mean, is that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and that no mere refinement of natural capacities can correct this condition. As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered.

I think the purpose of this post was to disagree with mine.
It certainly does so in the spirit of it, yet not in the essense.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Well, Ed, I agree with you here.

[FONT=&quot]I believe it is important to note that when you study Article I of the FC, you will see some very careful distinctions made. "Even after the fall this nature still is and remains a creature of God." And so there is a huge distinction between human nature, which is good and God's handiwork, and the corruption that inheres in that nature after the fall through original sin. The sin is distinguished from the good creation of God. If my body has a fever, it HAS a fever but is NOT that fever.


Q

[/FONT]

I think I might want to frame this post and remember this date, since there is an agreement between you and I.
It might not happen again in some time.

But in my view, the Eastern Orthodox approach towards man has some emphasys that the Protestants are glossing over somehow, and that is the Image of God in a man.

The very fact that there is a tremendous spiritual warfare waged against that chunk of a helpless meat that is called "a man", indicates that there is more to it in a man than being in the "image of Adam".

Traditional aspect of Christianity has much truth.

My personal objection against Traditional Christianity is that many who are in it simply revere tradition itself while saying they are not. (In Protestanism many revere the Bible itself). And that practice of clinging to Tradition and to the authority of the Traditional Church simply spoils the beauty and authenticity of traditional Christianity.
It it ridiculous at the best and idolaterous at the worst.

Yet Traditional Chrtistianity cannot be and should not be refused.
It is the ones that claim "sovereignty" who must be refused ... in any denomination.

Thanks,
Ed