"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
> I'm surprised at your identification of the view you outline below
> with "the Lutheran view" since as far as I can tell it is identical
> with my view.
Well, remember that Luther came before Calvin!
Seriously, I wasn't trying to be exclusive. I was responding
question about what people "from other faith communities" thought about "total
depravity" &c. I don't think that on this precise topic there are major
Lutheran-Reformed differences, though of course there are when the
broadened slightly to predestination & its implications.
> Total deprativity, to Calvinists, does not mean "that there is
> absolutely nothiing good about unregenerate humanity at all". We
> labor to distinguish between the "extent" of depravity (which is
> total and affects every human faculty) and the "degree" of depravity
> which is not absolute. Thus no Calvinist theologian that I know of
> would say that man is as bad as he good be.
OK, but I was referring to the sense that the phrase may convey to
non-experts. Lutheran & Reformed ideas about original sin have often
been seen by
Roman Catholics as Manichaean - just as, conversely, their ideas have
described as semi-Pelagian. & while this is formally untrue, we do need to be
sensitive to what people actually hear as well as to what we mean to say.
> Also, with respect to "simul justus et peccator" -- equally part of
> the Reformed theological tradition and the reason that justification
> is always the mainspring for sanctification. We never get beyond our
> need of the merits (both active and passive) of Christ.
OK, but I think the phrase itself originates with Luther.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 12 2002 - 15:21:14 EDT