The Gospel According to Catholic's

[apostoli]

I admit I didn't wade through all 6 pages (the first page was comical though). I was under the impression that Roman Catholic theology was mostly Sacramental Theology e.g. do the sacraments.

"Participation Theology" would be a better description eg: do participate in the body of Christ.

The seven sacraments are discussed at length in the Catholic Catechism. So, if you are curious you can read directly what the RCC teach on the idea rather than rely on third party distortions. Imu, the sacraments are gifts we receive to upbuild us in faith...being gifts we can't "do them" but we can actively accept the gifts...

I'll cite just a little from the opening paragraphs...
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2.htm

1210 Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life:1 they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

I'll also quote a little from the chapter titled "The sacraments of Christian initiation"...
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1.htm

1212 The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life. "The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity.

Does't RCC hold that the sacraments are the means of grace? So no sacraments, no grace. Right? or wrong?

Wrong!

Justification, Grace & Merit are also discusssed at length in the Catholic Catechism, I'll just cite a little bit...
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm

I. JUSTIFICATION paragraphs 1987 to 1995

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

II. GRACE paragraphs 1996 to 2005

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.5

III. MERIT paragraphs 2006 to 2011


2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

[apostoli]

I did not say that men don't freely accept God. I said that men will not freely accept God until God changes their hearts. So when I look at those Biblical examples of people accepting God, I see people whose hearts have been touched by God. I see "God consciousness" as another thing altogether. Everybody has a spiritual longing. We readily manufacture idols to fill that longing on our own terms. That's not the same thing as freely accepting God as He truly is, though.

IBecause of their ideas on man being radically depraved after the fall and their ideas on predestination, both Luther and Calvin denied that "everybody has a spiritual longing". Thus, imu, they held that any "spiritual longing" a man has is through the direct intervention of God.

Imo, there is a third of a truth in their ideas. In the scriptures God seems to have at least preserved a remnant of spiritually minded people (not totally depraved). For instance: though Adam had many children, the Godly line is traced through only one, Seth who alone is said to have been begotten in Adam's image (Gen 5:3) and in Gen 5:1 we learn that Adam was created "in the likeness of God ", so by extension so was Seth.

[RBerman]

IBecause of their ideas on man being radically depraved after the fall and their ideas on predestination, both Luther and Calvin denied that "everybody has a spiritual longing". Thus, imu, they held that any "spiritual longing" a man has is through the direct intervention of God.

Where did Luther and Calvin deny such a thing?

[Maxentius]

Imo, there is a third of a truth in their ideas. In the scriptures God seems to have at least preserved a remnant of spiritually minded people (not totally depraved). For instance: though Adam had many children, the Godly line is traced through only one, Seth who alone is said to have been begotten in Adam's image (Gen 5:3) and in Gen 5:1 we learn that Adam was created "in the likeness of God ", so by extension so was Seth.

God preserved a remnant through parents passing down his revelation to their children. Thus Adam and Eve passed on what God had revealed to their children, who then passed it down to their children etc. at various times, God spoke directly, or called a prophet. And in these last days, he speaks through his Son Jesus Christ.

[apostoli]

Hello Maxentius,

I know how time consuming these posts can be, so I would like to thank you for your time and effort, and indirectly making me check my facts ;-)

The Council of Trent addressed the Lutheran, Calvinist and Anabaptist branches of the Reformation. The Augsberg Confession [AC] is more authoritative than Luther's books in any case. And the rest of the Book of Concord expands on the AC. Thus, It is more likely that the Council of Trent was responding to the actual confessions of the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists as opposed to just Luther's writings per se.

Fair comment. Still, the various accounts I've read all point to Luther as the central focus. Maybe because it was he who first stired the pot...From what I gather it was initially Luther who appealed for a general council...

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia "On 28 November, 1518, Luther had appealed [for] a general council...The Diet held at Nuremberg in 1523 demanded a "free Christian council" on German soil, and at the Diet held in the same city in 1524 a demand was made for a German national council to regulate temporarily the questions in dispute, and for a general council to settle definitely the accusations against Rome, and the religious disputes...Rome positively rejected the German national council, but did not absolutely object to holding a general council...Emperor Charles V forbade the national council, but notified [pope] Clement VII through his ambassadors that he considered the calling of a general council expedient and proposed the [free] city of Trent as the place of assembly. In the years directly succeeding this, the unfortunate dispute between emperor and pope prevented any further negotiations concerning a council..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

According to Wiki, Luther appealed for a general council was in response to Pope Leo X's letter (bull) titled "Exsurge Domine" which was "a response to the teachings of Martin Luther in his 95 theses and subsequent writings which opposed the views of the papacy...While the bull did not directly condemn all the points of Luther's doctrines, it did specifically demand that Luther retract 41 errors (some drawn from his 95 theses, some from other writings or sayings attributed to him)".

In any case, The Bondage of the Will does not posit that we are on autopilot, but that before we are reborn we are unable to please God because after the fall our will is broken.

Did Abraham please God? Scripture says Abraham was God's friend.

Of course, but Abraham had already been exposed to the word of God previously and believed.

I may have an issue with that idea. Abram wasn't exclusively privy to "the word of God". In Gen 12 & 20 YHWH also speaks to the Kings that Abram had compromised (see below).

Abram was raised in "Ur of the Chaldees", then at some stage his father Terah took the family to Haran in Canaan (Gen 11:31). It is then we have the first account of YHWH directly communicating with Abram (Gen 12:1), and it seems He did so in this instance by His spoken word (though it is possible that "the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision" cp Gen 15:1, but also see Gen 18 where YHWH even sits down and eats while chatting to Abram).

My presumption is that Abram was influenced by his environment but there was something special about Abram that caused YHWH to select him as the father of his chosen people. Following the genelogies (which indicate a godly line) my speculation is Abram was "God conscious" and "God willing" from an early age.

Thus, from our standpoint, anything godly he does can be seen as an expression of the new man created by God when Abraham first believed.

There is nothing in scripture that I'm aware of that faintly suggests that Abram became a "new man" after his encounters with YHWH. In fact the OT texts would indicate Abram was a obsessed with his own safety to the extent he did not consider the impacts on anyone else, and though obedient to God, the biblical account indicates he didn't trust God to protect him! If we only had Gen 12:11-13 to go on we could argue Abram was on a learning curve, but then in Genesis 20 we see him repeating the same failings. Please understand that I am in no way disparaging Abram, imo, the account of his failings are there to teach us. I simply use this example to point out that your ascertian concerning the "new-man" idea in this case is untenable.

Philosophy aside. The question arises whether we have a choice in accepting God's grace? The alternative is that it is imposed upon us. From scripture we are advised to "repent", and also there is a requirement to "believe", we are also told of lack of repentance and unbelief. So, on face value there are choices in human response to God's grace.

I actually like RBerman's distinction (I paraphrase): when we are reborn we are no longer unwilling to believe, but willing to believe. Since we have passed from death to life, we act and believe differently after rebirth than before rebirth.

Imu, the RCC response would be that before rebirth we are willing to believe (and so at that point we are drawn by the Father to Christ - Jn 6:44), but on rebirth we surrender our will and conform to Christ (eg: Phil 2:5).

As to willing to be reborn, I am not sure anyone can be willing to be born, let alone reborn. Birth is something "extra nos" in the physical and spiritual realm.

In Jewish thought the concept of rebirth is quite complex and worth studying, it has nothing to do with "birthing" per se, but "change of state".

It is worth paying attention to Nicodemus' first reaction "How can a man be born when he is old?". Nicodemus didn't understand Jesus words as he, in his mind, had experienced all the "rebirths" open to him (nb: one "rebirth" open to those of the royal line was to be annointed as King. Nicodemus wasn't of the royal line). Consequently, he came up with the only logical conclusion "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". Many people stop at this verse not noticing the next verse which clarifies "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Imu, the "rebirth" is exclusively spiritual (cp. jn 3:12).

I do not understand how God could predestine a group without predestinating who is in the group, because the group has to contain individuals.

As A.Paul says though there are many members there is only one body of Christ. Imu, there is no individualism in the bod of Christ, merely functionaries.

I believe it is both: we are one body composed of individuals...

Imo, it is a contradiction of terms. We are either one together, existing for mutual benefit, or we exist for ourselves. I admit it is a matter of semantics, but I've come to discover that in theology words matter, in this case individual can connotate independent.

...just like I have a family composed of individuals, or a company is composed of individuals.

The way of the world, and look at the mess the world is in. A biblical example is that man and woman were to be as if one flesh, but of course individualism got in the way.

It is proper to speak of the individuals as well as the group.

Would you provide a scripture that would support that notion. Jesus prayed that his followers would be one as he and his father were one. In Trinitarian thought while there are three hypostases there is only one God.

I do not see the issue as either/or. If there were no individuals, we would not be differentiated as we are. Even St. Paul said the whole body is not an eye, etc.

As I suggested, it is intended that there be no indivuals (self seekers) in the body of Christ, merely functionaries that have inter-dependence. Using our example: an eye has its function, but without the body it has no natural existence.

...papal bulls, council statements etc. are still considered infallible if the proper processes are followed. A problem arises because it can sometimes be difficult to determine what is infallible and what is not.

Not that I am aware of...for something to be considered infallible it has to be considered irrevocable. Though there have been many papal decrees since 1870 (when the idea became dogma), there has only been one infallible decree issued by a Pope, and that was over 60 years ago (the Assumption of Mary has been in contention even amoung Catholic theologians. it is viewed by some as a harmless tradition made dogma to keep the Marian faction happy). On the other hand there can also be binding statements by a Pope, which another or the same Pope can over rule.

The Church is not an individual. As I suggested the group is predestined not the individual (ie: the church is predestined).

True, but it is a composite entity--"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved".."But you were called"...."Now I know you are the Christ".. etc. Thus, if there were no "you" or "I" in the Church, there would be no church, except I suppose Jesus Christ himself. In this way we would make the existence of the Church dependent on our "free will" to cooperate with God's grace. But I think we all agree that the Church reduced solely to the person of Jesus Christ is not the meaning or intent of the various statements regarding the Church.

Indeed the church is a composite of parts and A.Paul says each part has a function. However, note what A.Paul also says...

1 Cor 10;17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Cor 12:12-13 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call

Now while this is the intention "individuals" in the Church cause trouble. A.Paul cautions the Corinthians "...I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized". (1 Cor 11:17-19)

There even seems to be some doctrinal tension between the Latin Church and the Uniate churches. However, the institutional unity of the RCC is much stronger than in any other church body.

The thing with the RCC isn't so much "institutional unity", there are so many disparate and competing "institutions" in the RCC it makes one's mind boggle. Imo, what unites more than anything is the core of common dogma. The RCC does allow a wide range of opinion, as long as it doesn't stray from core dogma. Although...I was recently reading that Benedict is personally clamping down (shutting up) Bishops that annoy his sensibilies (several Oz congegations have been upset by the forced transfers and retirements of their priest or bishop). It is a big issue here as the policy until now has been Bishops have complete autonomy (within reason) and it is said that the new regime in Rome is becoming dictatorial. I'm not in the circle so who knows. Maybe the church needs a bit of discipline to reinvigorate it...it is in slow decline here.

That David repented is proof of his righteousness, since repentance is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. As one of his psalms say "Create in me a clean heart O God, and renew a right spirit within me..." (Psalm 51) And repentance is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and only believers have the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I'm unaware of the Holy Spirit being active before Pentecost. John 16 would indicate that he was yet to be sent...but still direct activity of YHWH was at work.

As for David's repentence, in my reading, it was a repentence of fear of reprisal. However, also in my reading, David developed a healthy fear of God, which led him appreciate God's justice and so he developed devotion to his God. So I guess I would say David became righteous through his experience of YHWH's activity, but as I said I don't recall the OT ever declaring his righteous.

Except that performing meritorious acts "merits" more grace.

Is God just or unjust? Have a think on the parable at Mt 25:14-30. Allocations and rewards vary according to how much one is a "good and faithful servant"

That is the rub: we do not merit anything at any time.

What does scripture say on the matter? The philosophical position holds there is no way we can indebt God = he can never owe us anything (both RCC & Protestants agree on that, as you indicate below).

God is under no obligation to reward our meritorious deeds.

So the RCC Catechism says! While God is under no obligation, the indications from scripture is that he freely rewards those that please him. 1 Thess 5:23 seems to indicate that there is a progression in God's gift (see bottom of this post).

Indeed, we believe that baptism is an act of God, not a meritorious act we do...

This is where we may have a central difference.
Imu, the RCC view Baptism as a gift from God, the act of being Baptised being acceptance of the gift, and confirmation of our desire to become his child and to be incorporated into the body of his Son. I assume you haven't had a chance to fully consider the Catholic Catechism's explanation of Justification, Grace and Merit. It explains the dogmatic position to an extent I can't in few words - I've been mainly giving the Sunday school version.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm

While I agree we do godly works in thanksgiving, they are not meritorious because we are supposed to be doing good works all the time. We are all "unprofitable servants"

If so there is no salvation for us. See Mt 25:30, it is the "unprofitable servant" that is cast out into the outer darkness, whereas the "profitable servants" are rewarded according to their accomplishments (Mt 25:20-23).

I'm uncertain if you put any thought into citing Luke 17:6-10. The first issue in the example Jesus used is what a human master might do, not what God would do. The text only indicates that we should be lowly of mind and consider ourselves unworthy servants; as we only do what we should be doing. There is no hint that there is no recognition or otherwise of the performance of our duties by the master (God). Jesus gives other examples where the masters gives recognition to the Stewards and rewards them accordingly.

Thus, to "reward" godly works with more grace is to make grace contingent on godly works, which means grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11) This true for the ancient Israelites as well as us gentiles: we are saved by grace, not our works--even our works done in "holiness of heart" cannot justify us. (Clement Epistle to Corinthians XXXII). Indeed, even if, under the RC system, God is not absolutely obligated to reward meritorious acts with more grace, as a matter of economy he is, since for RCs that is part of his promise. So even under the RC system, we in a real sense "earn" further grace.

Imu, it is possible to lose grace, thus we have a maintenace issue. The RCC has more than one category of Grace. There is firstly that of justification. "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." I assume this conforms to our idea of grace.

Then there is "sanctifying grace". Defined as: "The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification."

Then there is "the special graces". Described as: "Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church".

Again I invite you to fully consider the Catholic Catechism's detail on Grace.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm

My argument concerned Luther's opinion which appears to divest man of any involvement in his salvation = God imposes salvation on those he has preordained=predetermined. If such is so, then man has no voluntary participation - no choice in the matter.

We have no "involvement" in acquiring merit, but we are involved in serving God and our neighbors because we are new creatures in Christ. As to being "forced," we are not forced but reborn.

I didn't suggest "forced", I used the word "imposed" which has a different connotation (Webster = to establish or apply by authority; to establish or bring about as if by force).

There is a subtle but important difference between the two. I think the issue remains this teaching of "merit." The RC doctrine seems to want to have it both ways: meritorious acts are ours, but they don't actually merit anything apart from God's grace, yet they merit more grace. It is quite subtle, and in my opinion an outgrowth of the reformation era controversies. Never the less, I believe it boils down to our earning more grace by merit--even if strictly speaking God's reward of grace is voluntary on his part.

The RCC hold that we co-operate with God, so those that are reborn ultimately become co-workers (bad phrasing on my part but you get the drift). 2 Peter 1:4 talks about we becoming "partakers of the divine nature". The word A.Peter used that is translated "nature" is "physis" it differs from "ousia" (essence) in as much as, imu, it implies activity. This is where merit comes in, the more we strive to partake of the divine nature the more it is granted to us.

The question being: Is man capable of participating in his salvation? calvin and Luther appear to answer no!

Only if by "participate" you mean earn merit for our acts--and this is so even if these acts are due to our cooperation with the infused grace we received at our baptism. For Luther and Calvin, there is no merit besides that of Christ, and he is the only one who has earned anything. In opposition to this, the RCC teaches we merit grace: "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.."

Now, I understand that the source of this merited grace is our participation with the infused grace we receive at e.g. our baptism--but I see an issue where through various acts we can merit (another word for "earn") more grace. I think as St. Paul stated that this is not grace, but works.

As I mentioned above the RCC holds there is several types of grace. We cannot earn (merit) the saving Grace of the Father or the Son, but we can merit the sanctifying grace bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit, which allows us to participate in the divine physis.

An important consideration is the RCC teaching "2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit."

your contention is with A.Paul. He says he does what he shouldn't though he doesn't want to (Rom 7:19-20). He attributes the action to the flesh, and argues that it is not counted against the new-man who is in the Spirit (Rom 7 & 8).

Yes, so even St. Paul has a vestigial "Old Adam" even though he is an apostle. He is justified, yet he still sins. Or, simul justus et peccator. His justification did not remove his proclivity to sin--the sinful nature (his term) is still there warring against the new man in Christ. His sins are not counted against him because he, like David, has a repentant heart. IOW, I think this is a good illustration of my point.

The way I read A.Paul (especially in Romans) is that the new-man can't sin period (or at least it isn't attributed to him), as the new-man is in the Spirit and not in the flesh (it is the flesh that coninues to sin). As I said in the previous post it is for me a bit hard to get my head around but I think I get his drift. M interpretation is that because the heart is no longer geared to pleasing the flesh, anything we inadvertantly do isn't attributed to us. (I was thinking about this to myself, and gave myself the example of a hungry man who steals a portion of food. I came to the conclusion that if the person he stole food from had been charitable, then the theft would have been unneccessary, so no sin ensues, as the man's first responsibility is the preservation of his life.)

1 Thess 5:23 just came to mind, in it we are admonished "may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". To me, this would indicate that there is a progression in grace. The key words I've bolded.

[apostoli]

God preserved a remnant through parents passing down his revelation to their children. Thus Adam and Eve passed on what God had revealed to their children, who then passed it down to their children etc. at various times, God spoke directly, or called a prophet. And in these last days, he speaks through his Son Jesus Christ.

I see your comment as valid, but according to Calvin, Institutes 1:6 "...the impurity of parents is transmitted to their children, so that all, without exception, are originally depraved. The commencement of this depravity will not be found until we ascend to the first parent of all as the fountain head. We must, therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature, Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that,accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly vitiated. This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws between Adam and Christ..."

[apostoli]

Because of their ideas on man being radically depraved after the fall and their ideas on predestination, both Luther and Calvin denied that "everybody has a spiritual longing". Thus, imu, they held that any "spiritual longing" a man has is through the direct intervention of God.

]Where did Luther and Calvin deny such a thing?

Seems you want to play pedantic word games. Calvin's writings demonstrate that he held that "nobody has a spiritual longing" without the intervention of God.

If you wish me to prove my ascertain, we can start with Calvin's, Institutes 1:1:11 "Wherefore, if it is not improper to say, that, in consequence of the corruption of human nature, man is naturally hateful to God, it is not improper to say, that he is naturally vicious and depraved". Logically, from Calvin's viewpoint if "man is naturally hateful of God", everybody does not have spiritual longing as ou suggested in an earlier post, and so, in my understanding of Calvin, any "spiritual longing" in man has to be via God's intervention, as it requires a change in man's nature! In Institutes 1:5:3 "We have not the least hesitation to admit what Paul strenuously maintains, that all, without exception, are depraved and given over to wickedness; but at the same time weadd, that through the mercy of God all do not continue in wickedness. Therefore, while we all labour naturally under the same disease, those only recover health to whom the Lord is pleased to put forth his healing hand".

These two texts I quickly came across doing a search for Calvin's favourite word "depraved" on the pdf of the Institutes. I was looking for something in particular I had previously come across but these demonstrate my earlier ascertion.
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Book...20Religion.pdf

I decided to search the pdf for the word "spiritual', and came across the following at the very beginning of Book 1 this...

"So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity". (Inst. 1:1:2)

___________________

ps: Just came across an explicit statement of Calvin's which demands "When the Spirit describes men under the term darkness, he declares them void of all power of spiritual intelligence. For this reason, it is said that believers, in embracing Christ, are “born, not of blood,nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:13); in other words, that the flesh has no capacity for such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God, and the things of God, unless illumined by His Spirit." (Inst. 1:2:19) Now there might be a big difference between "longing" and "intelligence" but in various places Calvin suggests (paraphrased) that both Jews and Gentiles were so depraved in their ideas about of God, they could only envisage things of the earth, so if they had any "longing" it was for fleshy things.

[RBerman]

Seems you want to play pedantic word games. Calvin's writings demonstrate that he held that "nobody has a spiritual longing" without the intervention of God.

No word games intended; I'm trying to make a distinction between a generic "spiritual longing" which leads men into idolatry, as compared to a willingness to worship the true and living God. The quotations you produced concerned the absence of the latter instinct in men, apart from the direct work of the Holy Spirit. But I was trying to discuss the former.

[apostoli]

No word games intended

Ok! I seem to have misunderstood your intent. My apologies.

In my last few posts I've simply provided Calvin's opinions as I know them (just as a note: imo, strictly speaking, anyone who labels themselves a Calvinist and doesn't adhere to Calvin, isn't a Calvinist, so there might be a lot of latitude to be given in our discussions).

Imu, the RCC would support the idea that at the very least a spark of spirituality has been preserved in every man that would incline him/her to seek out God, what you propose as a "spiritual longing". Imu, should this spark be ignited by our instigation (eg: we read the scriptures and get excited), God will fan the flames and hopefully we would be lead to baptism and receive the free gift of "justification". I may not have expressed the idea adequately but I trust you get the drift - in simplicity we co-operate with God until he deems us worthy to receive the gifts. Imo, Calvin's view is that man is totally depraved and incapable of "spirituality" without the direct intervention of God (man is completely obsessed with outer forms and cannot conceive that which is inward). Thus Calvin refuses to permit us any involvement in the "spiritual" process = God has predestined=predetermined who will be saved and who won't, and so when he wants, for those that are to be saved he flicks a switch and a man's nature is changed.

I'm trying to make a distinction between a generic "spiritual longing" which leads men into idolatry, as compared to a willingness to worship the true and living God.

As far as I can tell in reading Calvin, he doesn't indicate man has any inherant desire to know God, and so has no "spiritual longing", as man is totally depraved and bound to the things of the flesh (an idea Calvin repeats regularly in the institutes). That is: man only seeks his own wisdom and fleshly desires which are utterly depraved.

Calvin, Institutes 1:11:8 has a lengthy discussion on man's quick turning away from God to idols immediately after the flood. The section starts "In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in the Book of Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent—viz. that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on the dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory. I [Calvin] admit that this perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not that it was a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of mankind to idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze". At this stage Calvin admits that ancestor worship was from "very high antiquity". Calvin describes the ancients' motivation as "superstitious regard to their [ancestors] memory". Imo, from Calvin's viewpoint, this would be evidence of the ancients having no "spiritual longing".

Calvin continued: "I do not, however, admit that it was the first origin of the practice. That idols were in use before the prevalence of that ambitious consecration of the images of the dead, frequently adverted to by profane writers, is evident from the words of Moses (Gen. 31:19). When he relates that Rachel stole her father’s images, he speaks of the use of idols as a common vice. Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols.

There was a kind of renewal of the world at the deluge, but before many years elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is reason to believe, that in the holy Patriarch’s lifetime his grandchildren were given to idolatry: so that he must with his own eyes, not without the deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with idols—that earth whose iniquities God had lately purged with so fearful a Judgment. For Joshua testifies (Josh. 24:2), that Torah and Nachor, even before the birth of Abraham, were the worshipers of false gods. The progeny of Shem having so speedily revolted, what are we to think of the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long before in their father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human mind, stuffed as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to its own capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place of God..."

Calvin's next sentence precludes man as having a "spiritual longing", for elsewhere Calvin advocates that man inwardly is in complete darkness (depraved): To these evils [sunk in the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity] another is added. The god whom man has thus conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly...That idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited..."

ps: the above is part of a diatribe on what Calvin refers to as the Papists (Calvin, Institutes 1:11:7)

The quotations you produced concerned the absence of the latter instinct in men, apart from the direct work of the Holy Spirit. But I was trying to discuss the former.

I would agree that man is imbued inherently with a "spiritual longing" (even though in some people it is at rest) - what I refered to above as a spark that can be ignited. I presume we agree that there are plenty of OT examples of men that were willing to be obedient to God, once they came to accept him as God (eg: Jacob).

[RBerman]

I wouldn't assume that Calvin believes that a depraved man has no spiritual longings, only that he pursues those spiritual longings with the goal of satisfying himself rather than the goal of following God whatever the cost. The Calvin quote you gave above about ancestor worship supports my view; superstition is an example of a spiritual longing, albeit an aberrant sort of longing. Here's what Calvin says:

John Calvin

That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service. Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God.

Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,—these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God.

© source where applicable

[apostoli]

I wouldn't assume that Calvin believes that a depraved man has no spiritual longings, only that he pursues those spiritual longings with the goal of satisfying himself rather than the goal of following God whatever the cost.

Imu, both Luther & Calvin accepted that a certain degree of rationality was retained after the fall = man did not descend to the status of "animal" but retained his status as "rational animal" - the existence of moral codes external to religion would demonstrate this (cp. various clauses in A.Paul's letter to the Romans of which we are all aware.)

Imu, Calvin held it was the soul of man (the motivating/animating force) that became radically depraved, thus man, without the intervention of God cannot have or experience "spirituality" (which is the experience of the soul not the mind). Thus man since the fall is restricted to mere intellectualism and emotionalism. Notice the first sentence in the paragraph you cited from Calvin: "...there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity..."

If we read on to chapter 4 (Institues 1:4:1) Calvin explicity demands "But though experience testifies that a seed of religion is divinely sown in all, scarcely one in a hundred is found who cherishes it in his heart, and not one in whom it grows to maturity so far is it from yielding fruit in its season. Moreover, while some lose themselves in superstitious observances, and others, of set purpose, wickedly revolt from God, the result is that, in regard to
the true knowledge of him, all are so degenerate, that in no part of the world can genuine godliness be found."

The Calvin quote you gave above about ancestor worship supports my view; superstition is an example of a spiritual longing, albeit an aberrant sort of longing.

We must have different definitions of "spiritual longing" (?) Imo, ancestor worship is the furtherest you can get considering it incorporates "spiritualism"="occultism". Imo, it is a concept based on fear of reprisal. For instance: the Australian aborigines in their "Dreaming" have no concept of God or gods, or religion for that matter, but they believe everything has its spirit, including rocks. Thus if you are walking through a valley and a rock falls from a cliff and hits you on the head, their assumption is that in your trespass you somehow offended the rock.

An aside: Sometime ago I was watching a reality doco where two adventurers, one Canadaian and one American, were to race across the inland desert against an aborigine elder (he was about 80yo). The C&A had hand-carts and whatever to carry their supplies, the old man had a small bag and no supplies. Of course the C&A ran out of water very quickly and were doing it tough, but the old man was fine. He explained that his ancestor spirit was guiding him showing him where to find food and water (in reality, when he saw a flock of birds flying in a particular direction at sunset, thats where he would find water).

Basically, Australian aborigines can't be said to have a "spiritual longing" as their whole life, from their traditional viewpoint, is dependent on pleasing or appeasing the spirit forces. There are very few traditional aborigines left, mostly old people. I read somewhere that about 74% of Australian aborigines now identify themselves as Christian - a result of enforced Europeanisation, instigated and administered mainly by Methodist missionaries and sponsored by the Colonial governments in the 19th centur and the states in the early 20th. It was not something the aborigines wanted, and in modern times there is a back lash.

Here's what Calvin says:

Thankyou for the cite of Calvin's Institutes 1:3:1. The example of the Australian aborigine I've given above was in reference to Calvin's ascertain "Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish,as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart."

Calvin covered all bases in the statement I've bolded, but he seems to assume that the concept of God is universal, which has been proved false, but to be fair Europeans didn't encounter Australian aborigines until the early 17th century and based on the scathing description those Dutchman gave of their encounter with the aborigine, they may have had Calvin's words in mind.

[RBerman]

Apostoli, Romans 1-2 teach us that the knowledge of God and His laws is inherent in humanity. It's of no consequence whether a particular person says, "I don't know about God" or not. If they say they don't consciously know, their heart is simply suppressing that innate knowledge of God which is the source of our innate spiritual longing. The reality of our depraved nature does not change this fact, though it does corrupt it down idolatrous avenues. So, for instance, the aborigine who desires to appease spiritual forces.

[apostoli]

Hi RBerman,

Apostoli, Romans 1-2 teach us that the knowledge of God and His laws is inherent in humanity.

As Calvin implies, such would only apply to persons residing in civilised societies (cp Institutes 1:3:1).

It's of no consequence whether a particular person says, "I don't know about God" or not.

As Calvin implies, there maybe (are) people who genuinely have no conception or perception of their being a God (cp Institutes 1:3:1).

If they say they don't consciously know, their heart is simply suppressing that innate knowledge of God which is the source of our innate spiritual longing.

Now what happens to a person that has no conception or perception of their being a God? I'd suggest that once it is demonstrated to them that there is a God, and they accept the fact, then a "spiritual longing" can develop. Possibly all mankind has an "innate desire to know God" but it is questionable that man has an "innate knowledge of God". For instance: A.Paul argues from rationalism "the invisible things of him...[are] understood by the things that are made..." (Rom 1:20)

The reality of our depraved nature does not change this fact, though it does corrupt it down idolatrous avenues. So, for instance, the aborigine who desires to appease spiritual forces.

To an extent I accept what you relate in total as it applies to civilised mankind. My argument is that Calvin would not! I say "extent', simply because any conflict between us may simply be in expression. Imo, after the fall, man retained a spark of Godliness in his soul, which would allow innate spiritual longing = an innate (but potential) desire to be in relationship with God (imu, Calvin prohibits such). Imo, though we have this innate longing in us it is suppressed by our own vain reasonings = rationalism, intellectualism etc (imu, Calvin would allow such).

The catch word we (I) seem to be having difficulty with is "spiritual". For instance: contrary to your example, a traditional Australian aborigine would never have a desire "to appease spiritual forces" as Australian aboriginals do not have a conception of "spiritual forces" at work but specific "spirits" who most often stays put in one place. The idea "spirits" is just an inadequate western word applied by westerners so they can read western thought into aboriginal meaning. To the aboriginal, the idea amounts to "an invisible person/s" who resides in a physical object such as a rock.. One other point concerning my example of the Australian aborigine: before white settlement, they had no concept of worship (didn't make idols or talismans, so no idolatary and the aren't into ancestor worship) and they existed in total innocence, not even knowing they were naked until the missionaries told them they were and that it was unacceptable. So, until white settlement in Oz, Romans 1-2 can't be applied to them - not having any conception or perception of God, and having not done any of the bad things of which A.Paul spoke, they could not be held to hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18).

My only point in giving my example of the Australian aborigine before white settlement in OZ is that not all humanity by neccessity falls into Calvin's general definition (or for that matter A.Paul's). Calvin, as previously cited, presupposes that all men know of God (as did A.Paul in the context of Jews and Gentiles). Though Calvin does speculate that if there are people who have no knowledge of God, if "such an instance exists [it must be] among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation".

[RBerman]

As Calvin implies, such would only apply to civilised societies (cp Institutes 1:3:1). As Calvin implies, there maybe people who genuinely have no conception or perception of their being a God (cp Institutes 1:3:1)... Though Calvin does speculate that if there are people who have no knowledge of God, if "such an instance exists [it must be] among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation."

You are misreading him. Go back again and look; I know it can be difficult to parse 16th century sentence structure. Calvin is making an a fortiori argument that if primitive tribes have a spiritual awareness, how much so would people in more advanced civilizations. To paraphrase Calvin: "Everyone knows there is a God. If there were anyone we might expect to not know about God, it would be the savage tribes who live little better than animals. Yet even they, in their idolatrous reverence of animals and other elements of nature, show that deep within all of us is a spiritual impulse, a recognition of a spirit world greater than ourselves." Now, you may question Calvin's supposition that primitive tribes would be less likely to be spiritual in the first place. Regardless, his point is that everyone is spiritual, and that universal accountability before God is based on universal awareness of God on a gut level.

[apostoli]

You are misreading him. Go back again and look; I know it can be difficult to parse 16th century sentence structure. Calvin is making an a fortiori argument that if primitive tribes have a spiritual awareness, how much so would people in more advanced civilizations.

To the contrary, I'm not misreading him, I was aware he was presenting a supposition that he then argued against using the testimony of a heathen who "tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish,as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God".

Calvin's Institutes 1:3:1. "Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish,as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart."

To paraphrase Calvin: "Everyone knows there is a God.

Better to quote him literally. "if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation". This may in fact be a a fortiori, as imo Calvin wouldn't conceive of such a state being possible, but if it was possible such people would be of the "dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation".

If there were anyone we might expect to not know about God, it would be the savage tribes who live little better than animals.

Calvin's source is a heathen who "tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish,as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion".

Yet even they, in their idolatrous reverence of animals and other elements of nature

At best Calvin tells us that the heathen tells us that even those who live like animals retain some sense of religion.

show that deep within all of us is a spiritual impulse, a recognition of a spirit world greater than ourselves.

The clause "retain some sense of religion" would allow that.

Now, you may question Calvin's supposition that primitive tribes would be less likely to be spiritual in the first place.

I'm not aware of Calvin's presuming that primitive tribes would be less likely to be spiritual.

It would be a fair assumption for his day, to assume even the most primitive tribes known at the time were known to have a primitive form of civilisation and therefore religion.

Regardless, his point is that everyone is spiritual, and that universal accountability before God is based on universal awareness of God on a gut level.

I'd concede that Calvin may not have conceived that it was possible for a man not to know of God or have no religion, but he did give the proviso that if it was possible such people would be of the "dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation". It just happens that such tribes were discovered on a continent almost the size of the USA which was once "farthest removed from civilisation".

An aside: When the British "discovered" Australia they declared it Terra Nullius = uninhabited, because though there were people, there was no sign of civilisation - even in the most primitive form.