These notes from Lane Tipton are really good:
Grace, Rome and new perspective/federal vision
- Thread starter arapahoepark
- Start date
- Status
LittleFaith
Puritan Board Sophomore
If I might make, however ham-handedly, an attempt at summarizing this to test my own comprehension...
- In Protestantism, man is created in the image of God, with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness - but with the capacity to fall away into sin.
- In Roman Catholicism, man is created not just with the capacity toward sin but with an inherent bent toward sin (which Rome calls concupiscence).* He is, in a sense, marred from creation. The super-added gift "remedies" this flaw but still leaves man with the capacity to fall away into sin.
If I'm understanding this correctly (meaning that this post is an implicit question / request for feedback), Roman theology thus introduces a separation between man's "natural" state (the flawed/"lower"/base instinct part) and the gracious addition to that.
Roman theology thus also introduces a distinction between the "common grace" intrinsic to the blessing of our existence and survival and the grace needed to raise us from our flawed created state into a state capable of grace.
I can then see how it flows logically, though not necessarily, that because of these added distinctions and layers to the notion of man in his pre-fallen state, Roman theology can then conceive of sacramentally efficacious "injections" of that super-added gift, with the church as superintendent of that operation - but because of their way of thinking about the super-added gift, such operations only raise us from an inherent bent toward sin toward a state of grace but still with the possibility of falling away - just like Adam.
So this is where Lane derives his two-fold critique. Rome's view of pre-fall man is too low: contra Scripture's testimony that God saw his creation as very good, Rome believes that man at creation was flawed and possessed of a "carnal" element immediately inclined toward sin.** Second, Rome's view of fallen man is too high: contra Scripture's testimony that the fall represents a radical corruption of man's nature and change in his state, Rome simply views it as the realization of something already latent in man from the moment of creation. It seems there is also a third part: Rome's view of grace is too low, representing not a radical cure but a suppressant in need of continual administration.
My question, alluded to above: does Rome's theology of the sacraments and salvation flow out of this view of man by necessity or by convenience? Can one hold to a Romanesque view of pre-fall man as outlined above, but also hold to a higher view of grace as restoring/renewing man to a higher state than that which he held prior to the fall, even with the super-added gift?
I'm not asking if one should hold to that admixture of views; rather, I am simply asking by way of seeking a better comprehension of the topic. Perhaps, because of my limited understanding, I don't yet see how this view of man at creation forces one (assuming a desire for consistency) to also adopt Rome's views of salvation and sacrament, though I certainly see how they go together.
*Do I understand correctly that Rome and Protestantism have different notions of concupiscence, with Protestantism viewing concupiscence as itself being damningly sinful per WCF ch. 6 but Rome merely viewing concupiscence as that "natural" bent toward sin?
**Does Rome believe that the super-added gift was immediately present at creation? Also, as a sidebar, is it accurate to consider this low view of nature somewhat gnostic?
- In Protestantism, man is created in the image of God, with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness - but with the capacity to fall away into sin.
- In Roman Catholicism, man is created not just with the capacity toward sin but with an inherent bent toward sin (which Rome calls concupiscence).* He is, in a sense, marred from creation. The super-added gift "remedies" this flaw but still leaves man with the capacity to fall away into sin.
If I'm understanding this correctly (meaning that this post is an implicit question / request for feedback), Roman theology thus introduces a separation between man's "natural" state (the flawed/"lower"/base instinct part) and the gracious addition to that.
Roman theology thus also introduces a distinction between the "common grace" intrinsic to the blessing of our existence and survival and the grace needed to raise us from our flawed created state into a state capable of grace.
I can then see how it flows logically, though not necessarily, that because of these added distinctions and layers to the notion of man in his pre-fallen state, Roman theology can then conceive of sacramentally efficacious "injections" of that super-added gift, with the church as superintendent of that operation - but because of their way of thinking about the super-added gift, such operations only raise us from an inherent bent toward sin toward a state of grace but still with the possibility of falling away - just like Adam.
So this is where Lane derives his two-fold critique. Rome's view of pre-fall man is too low: contra Scripture's testimony that God saw his creation as very good, Rome believes that man at creation was flawed and possessed of a "carnal" element immediately inclined toward sin.** Second, Rome's view of fallen man is too high: contra Scripture's testimony that the fall represents a radical corruption of man's nature and change in his state, Rome simply views it as the realization of something already latent in man from the moment of creation. It seems there is also a third part: Rome's view of grace is too low, representing not a radical cure but a suppressant in need of continual administration.
My question, alluded to above: does Rome's theology of the sacraments and salvation flow out of this view of man by necessity or by convenience? Can one hold to a Romanesque view of pre-fall man as outlined above, but also hold to a higher view of grace as restoring/renewing man to a higher state than that which he held prior to the fall, even with the super-added gift?
I'm not asking if one should hold to that admixture of views; rather, I am simply asking by way of seeking a better comprehension of the topic. Perhaps, because of my limited understanding, I don't yet see how this view of man at creation forces one (assuming a desire for consistency) to also adopt Rome's views of salvation and sacrament, though I certainly see how they go together.
*Do I understand correctly that Rome and Protestantism have different notions of concupiscence, with Protestantism viewing concupiscence as itself being damningly sinful per WCF ch. 6 but Rome merely viewing concupiscence as that "natural" bent toward sin?
**Does Rome believe that the super-added gift was immediately present at creation? Also, as a sidebar, is it accurate to consider this low view of nature somewhat gnostic?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
