Caio Rodrigues

I get that, but I’m not really interested in the type of grace being referred to. I’m asking about any work of grace, at all, however one wants to define it. Each view will define it differently, but ultimately every view says that God must be the first mover, the initiator, and that’s this movement from God is gracious and necessary. Why is it necessary? Because man cannot seek God so as to be saved on his own. I’m not trying to prove a specific view of God’s work of grace; I’m trying to show that the objection against Reformed theology which states “You believe that man is born unable to seek God,” cuts against all of Christian orthodoxy, not just Reformed theology.

Like I said, plenty of folks are willing to say, “No, man without God’s grace could not save himself.” The reason why I insinuated that you may believe that man could be saved without God’s grace is because you were always avoiding the question by saying “that’s a hypothetical that doesn’t exist.” But I am glad that you affirm that man, in his fallen state, could not seek God on their own. That’s the crux of the discussion. Why? Because your objection to Reformed theology that it is wrong to teach that man is born unable to seek God strikes against all orthodox positions. Roman Catholics, to Arminians, Lutherans, Anglicans, even Eastern Orthodox, all affirm that without God’s grace man is born in a state where he is unable to seek God on his own strength. The reasons each view gives for this may vary, but the core is the same. You affirm that man inherited a nature, from Adam, that is inclined towards sin and will inevitably sin. You affirm that grace is necessary for man to seek God. Whether you say “His grace is always there” isn’t relevant because you are still saying that grace is necessary. This isn’t a “gotcha.” It’s an exercise to show that your objection cuts against your view because, ultimately, you affirm the same thing for different reasons. Grace is necessary because man cannot, on his own strength and without that grace, seek God. And this is because he is born into a fallen state in a fallen and sinful world.

Yes, per Aquinas. “Man's nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (A. 1). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured.” - Aquinas, Summa, I-II, Q. 102, Art. 2 “But in the state of corrupt nature man falls short of this in the appetite of his rational will, which, unless it is cured by God's grace, follows its private good, on account of the corruption of nature. And hence we must say that in the state of perfect nature man did not need the gift of grace added to his natural endowments, in order to love God above all things naturally, although he needed God's help to move him to it; but in the state of corrupt nature man needs, even for this, the help of grace to heal his nature.” - Aquinas, Summa, I-II, Q. 102, Art. 3

The doctrine of Total Depravity is not unique to Calvinism. “The first use in order of the moral law, under a state of sin, is against man as a sinner, not only that it may accuse him of transgression and guilt, and may subject him to the wrath of God and condemnation; (Rom. 3:19, 20;) but that it may likewise convince him [impotentia] of his utter inability to resist sin and to subject himself to the law.” James Arminius, The Works of Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, vol. 1 (Auburn; Buffalo: Derby, Miller and Orton, 1853), 533. “XVI. 3. These suasions are of themselves alone sufficient to produce an historical faith, but not that which is saving. To them, therefore, must be added the internal suasion of God by his Holy Spirit, which has its scope of operations, (1.) In the illumination of the mind, that we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God; that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God, and that Jesus Christ is the wisdom and the power of God. (1 Cor. 3:7; Ephes. 1:17, 18; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 2:12; 1:24; 12:3.)” James Arminius, The Works of Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, vol. 1 (Auburn; Buffalo: Derby, Miller and Orton, 1853), 408. “VIII. 1. The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For “the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God;” (1 Cor. 2:14;) in which passage man is called “animal,” not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of “vain” and “foolish;” and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated [amentes] “mad” or foolish, “fools,” and even “darkness” itself. (Rom. 1:21, 22; Ephes. 4:17, 18; Titus 3:3; Ephes. 5:8.) This is true, not only when, from the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to it. For the human mind judges that to be “foolishness” which is the most excellent “wisdom” of God. (1 Cor. 1:18, 24.) On this account, what is here said must be understood not only of practical understanding and the judgment [singularis] of particular approbation, but also of theoretical understanding and the judgment of general estimation.” James Arminius, The Works of Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, vol. 1 (Auburn; Buffalo: Derby, Miller and Orton, 1853), 526–527.