Treading carefully through TULIP

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
15,629
Reaction score
5,019
Points
108
Location
London UK
PREDESTINATION
Most Christian denominations believe in some form of predestination because the Bible uses the term, but in what way predestination should be understood is not itself made clear.

It was a big issue in the Reformation, and two camps emerged: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches. (The influence of Calvinism in the US is perhaps disproportionate, because the Puritans and the Baptists among the early settlers were Calvinists.)

Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation. These people are known as “the elect”. God has chosen them and instilled in them the desire to come to him. Those who are not among the elect, “the reprobate,” will not desire God, and thus will not be saved.

This view was rejected by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As all sin in Adam, all can be saved in Adam. God is the God of all, not the God of some.

The ‘argument’ or ‘misunderstanding’ as I see it results from a misconception regarding the nature of the Divine. The fact that God foreknows something does not mean He determines it to happen.

If the Bible says the finding of one lost sheep is a cause for celebration, then by the same token, the loss of one sheep is the cause of distress.

Too often predestination is a convenient way of dismissing those who don’t do what you tell them to do, or who resist your teachings.

Conversely, the pseudo-Buddhist notion: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’, is neither Buddhist nor assured. (It seems to have been coined by the Theosophical Association.) But really? How do we know? How do we count those who were ready but for whom no teacher appeared?

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Christ points out that the publican in the Temple is justified before God, because his prayer is pleasing to God. So he was not ‘totally depraved’. Peter baptised Cornelius and his household because it was clear to him they had been baptsied by the Holy Spirit before they had even heard of Christ. And they weren’t even Jews, but they were pleasing to God. So not totally depraved.

Christ admired the faith of the centurion ... and so it goes...

The accepted Catholic teaching is that because of the fall of Adam, man’s nature is wounded. His eye to the supernatural is occluded, because God withdrew that transcending grace, and only God can reinstate it, but that does not mean man cannot be naturally good, nor that nothing he does is pleasing to God.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Same argument as above.

LIMITED ATONEMENT
And again.

Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25).

I might add here that if we are being literal about it, the Church He was talking about was the Church founded on Peter. So the Catholic Church.

One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. When in Galatians 2:20 Paul says that Christ “loved me and gave himself for me,” that does not mean He gave Himself for Paul and no-one else!

John 4:42 describes Christ as “the Saviour of the world,” and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as “the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.”

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. For this reason many have called this the doctrine of irresistible grace.

Yet Scripture indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, “You always resist the Holy Spirit!”

PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS
Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life. Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out that when we become Christians we become God’s children. They infer that, just as a child’s position in the family is secure, our position in God’s family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will not kick us out.

This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed to. Children do not have “eternal security” in their families. First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as God’s children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually “born again.”

Calvinists chiefly use John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39 to state their case. But the texts are interpreted out of context, and there are numerous objections to their interpretation.

There is no reason why a person cannot “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (cf Luke 8:13).
 
I believe... If there is predestination... And if there is a heaven...then we are all destined for it.

As...if there is a forgiving, loving, creator G!d... Then it would not expect its nonperfect creations to get it all correct in one life in this plane of existence.

Lot of ifs.
 
It has been my understanding that the Catholic Church does not believe in predestination. Indeed, how could it when one of its founding tenants is that humans were given the capability to choose.
Quite. As I said, the position is founded on the idea that if one knows something, that does not mean one predestines it to happen.
 
My response to Wil was a rhetorical question ... but there is an aspect that is relevant to the idea of predestination ...

When people in the West think of the "self", it's invariably in the context of the 'soul', the ground of being that they conceive of as the fundamental 'I' of me, something that is core to my being, and is the subject of all experience and the agent of all actions.

Buddhism teaches (and modern cognitive science tends to agree) that there is no such single core. Instead experiences result from interactions of multiple perceptory functions. Similarly, our actions are performed by a conglomerate of functions, without a single agent responsible for all choices, the result of which I reflect upon and conclude there is an 'I' of me ...

When the West accepts, rather out of blind faith and optimism, the idea of individual rebirth, it assumes the notion of a "self" as its necessary foundation.

As Buddhism teaches, this notion is part of the problem. In a roundabout way, the idea that I get another chance to get it right, guarantees I've got it wrong, so in erroneously banking on my next existence, I'm also guaranteeing no enlightenment in this one.

Once free of the illusion of self, the question no longer applies.

But that begs the question ... what is it that frees itself of attachments?

Meanwhile, rebirth as principle goes on. What endures is actually the environment we leave for the next generation. So rather than 'I' being reborn into another life, new life is born and inherits our world, and part of that inheritance is the continuing notion of the illusory senses of self, freedom and autonomy, as being the be-all and end-all, just continues the problem, as it were. All that is transient and ephemeral and disperses and is reabsorbed, as energies, much as the physical matter returns to the earth. From dust to dust, ashes to ashes ...

With regard to predestination, some of the the Greek Fathers — especially those aligned with the mystical aspects of the Tradition — speak of the logoi, that is, the uncreated idea of 'me' that exists in the mind of God. Not, I hasten to add, that God predetermines 'me' as such ... it's a delicate idea ...

Christ is the Logos, and from Him proceed the logoi, and each and every created thing has its uncreated ideal in the Logos, and that is its logoi.

We would say that when the soul 'detaches' itself (detachment was Eckhart's most prized virtue) from the world and from the passions, the mind is able to contemplate its logoi that transcends the natural order. Some Fathers use the term 'heart' rather than 'mind' but in that sense the two are synonymous.

Theosis is when one's self-identification with one's logoi occurs without any 'illusion' to use a Buddhist term. When one detaches oneself from the attachments that bind, one 'sinks into' or 'rises up to' the logoi, and it at this point that all Eckharts distinctions between creature and Creator disappear ...

But in the future age when graced with divinization, he will affectionately love and cleave to the logoi ... that pre-existed in God, or rather, he will love God himself, in whom the logoi of beautiful things are securely grounded. In this way, he becomes a "portion of God," insofar as he exists through the logos of his being which is in God... (Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 7)

When the West lost contact with the East, much of this was lost, although its realisation is there, abundantly evident in Augustine, for example. And when later debates over Predestination occurred, driven by the political currents sweeping Europe, it was without any real spiritual depth of understanding of the working of God in the soul, but was pushed to its conclusion by the dynamism of western nationalism and was carried out in a somewhat spiritually sterile environment ... say what you will about the Reformers, but mystics they were not, indeed they were deeply suspicious of the mystical.
 
PREDESTINATION
Most Christian denominations believe in some form of predestination because the Bible uses the term, but in what way predestination should be understood is not itself made clear.

It is made clear by its definition---determined beforehand. Those who dislike the term, try to redefine it.

It was a big issue in the Reformation, and two camps emerged: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches. (The influence of Calvinism in the US is perhaps disproportionate, because the Puritans and the Baptists among the early settlers were Calvinists.)

Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation.

That is not the doctrine of predestination. Predestination teaches God is sovereign and man plays no part in his salvation. This is clearly taught in
Rom 9:16, Jn 1:13 & Acts 13:48. It is also taught in the allegory of being born again. Children do not play a part in the physical birth. That was decided by their parents.

These people are known as “the elect”. God has chosen them and instilled in them the desire to come to him. Those who are not among the elect, “the reprobate,” will not desire God, and thus will not be saved.

God not install the desire in them. salvation is by the grace of God and it is a gift. as is our faith(Eph 2:8 & Rom 12:3).

This view was rejected by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As all sin in Adam, all can be saved in Adam. God is the God of all, not the God of some.
God is only the God of those he caused to be born again(I Pet 1:3).

The ‘argument’ or ‘misunderstanding’ as I see it results from a misconception regarding the nature of the Divine. The fact that God foreknows something does not mean He determines it to happen.

Right and very important to understand it.


If the Bible says the finding of one lost sheep is a cause for celebration, then by the same token, the loss of one sheep is the cause of distress.

The lost sheep was one of the the Good Shepherds flock. It became a prodigal until its Shep;herd went looking and found it.

Too often predestination is a convenient way of dismissing those who don’t do what you tell them to do, or who resist your teachings.

Not isn't. It is the way we point to Gods sovereignty.

Conversely, the pseudo-Buddhist notion: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’, is neither Buddhist nor assured. (It seems to have been coined by the Theosophical Association.) But really? How do we know? How do we count those who were ready but for whom no teacher appeared?

No comment

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Christ points out that the publican in the Temple is justified before God, because his prayer is pleasing to God. So he was not ‘totally depraved’. Peter baptised Cornelius and his household because it was clear to him they had been baptsied by the Holy Spirit before they had even heard of Christ. And they weren’t even Jews, but they were pleasing to God. So not totally depraved.

Christ admired the faith of the centurion ... and so it goes...

Those examples only point to them being of the elect.

Your comment about Catholic theology got inadvertently deleted. so my comment may not address the issue. Reformed theology accept total deravity based on Eph 2:1, Rom 3:11 & I Cor 2:14. Arminianism rejects it on tge basis of Josh 1:12 & Jn 12:47-48



UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Same argument as above.

LIMITED ATONEMENT
And again.

Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25).

I might add here that if we are being literal about it, the Church He was talking about was the Church founded on Peter. So the Catholic Church.

One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. When in Galatians 2:20 Paul says that Christ “loved me and gave himself for me,” that does not mean He gave Himself for Paul and no-one else!

John 4:42 describes Christ as “the Saviour of the world,” and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as “the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.”

I reject limited atonement based on I Jn 2:2).


IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. For this reason many have called this the doctrine of irresistible grace.

Yet Scripture indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, “You always resist the Holy Spirit!”

Calvinist point to Jn 6;37; Arminianians also use Jn 5:40

PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS
Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life. Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out that when we become Christians we become God’s children. They infer that, just as a child’s position in the family is secure, our position in God’s family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will not kick us out.

This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed to. Children do not have “eternal security” in their families. First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as God’s children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually “born again.”

Calvinists chiefly use John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39 to state their case. But the texts are interpreted out of context, and there are numerous objections to their interpretation.

Christians can't fall away permanently because God will not allow it: God finishes what He starts(Phil 1:6 & Heb 12:2 & Jn 6:37-40) & I Pet 1:23). We can also use the analogy of being born again. When one is born physically, they can't be unborn. The same is true of the new firth.

So what we have is verses supposedly supporting each view. How do we chose which one are true? We don't choose, we accept all of them. They are an antinomy---2 apparent truths that on the surface seem to be contradictory, and you can't play one against the other without destroying them both.
What we need to do is accept they are not contradictory to God and that is only our lack of complete understanding that makes hem see contradictory to us.

When you were born did you start living or dying?

There is no reason why a person cannot “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (cf Luke 8:13).

We cannot fall away permanently. God is going to perfect what He started in us. The prodigal son fell away but eventually smelled the pizza and returned. He was willing to become a servant and that is what all Christian need to do(Phil 2:5-7).
 
It is made clear by its definition---determined beforehand.
Quite. Here I agree with Wil, it's God's will that all men are saved — 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9.

But that it is God's desire that all men be saved, does not mean that all men are saved. That depends on the men, as salvation is on offer to all. Man can wreck it, and by the same token, man can make himself worthy of it.

As God said, every labourer is worth his hire, so God recognises the good deeds of men, even though their good deeds in themselves do not make them worthy of everlasting life. Nothing we can do can equal that. Natural good deserves natural reward, but natural good does not deserve supernatural reward, and man, without the assistance of the Divine, cannot perform a supernatural good.

Children do not play a part in the physical birth. That was decided by their parents.
Irrelevant.

God not install the desire in them.
If God made some men to be saved, and some to go to perdition, then that's a shabby God, and a bad one as there is nothing good in creating something you have already determined will suffer eternally.

And a God who creates someone incapable of being saved, and then punishes them for their incapacity, is a monster.
 
Then we have proof there is no loving, forgiving G!d.
No, we have evidence that man will spin doctrines to suit himself.

As an old monk once said to me, 'we all need our myths'. The idea that we get endless attempts to get it right is just one of the more common western ones.
 
Quite. Here I agree with Wil, it's God's will that all men are saved — 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9.

But that it is God's desire that all men be saved, does not mean that all men are saved. That depends on the men, as salvation is on offer to all. Man can wreck it, and by the same token, man can make himself worthy of it.

As God said, every labourer is worth his hire, so God recognises the good deeds of men, even though their good deeds in themselves do not make them worthy of everlasting life. Nothing we can do can equal that. Natural good deserves natural reward, but natural good does not deserve supernatural reward, and man, without the assistance of the Divine, cannot perform a supernatural good.

Right. Timothy says they must come to the knowledge of he truth, but many reject the truth without considering something they do not believe is true. Peter says they must come to repentance, and some don't see the need to repent.


Irrelevant.

Allegories are never irrelevant. They teach spiritual truths.


If God made some men to be saved, and some to go to perdition, then that's a shabby God, and a bad one as there is nothing good in creating something you have already determined will suffer eternally.

The

And a God who creates someone incapable of being saved, and then punishes them for their incapacity, is a monster.

Since God desires all to be saved, He has not created some who can't be.
 
... say what you will about the Reformers, but mystics they were not, indeed they were deeply suspicious of the mystical.

Hmm . . . Come to think of it Protestants do seem more suspicious of the mystical. I don't have any Protestant friends that quote from Christian mystics. Maybe it's just my pool of Protestants.

Because of their views of the soul, nationalism, and a "somewhat spiritually sterile environment," they were suspicious of the mystical? What do you mean by a "somewhat spiritually sterile environment?" Wasn't their environment infused with Catholic culture?
 
Last edited:
Hmm . . . Come to think of it Protestants do seem more suspicious of the mystical. I don't have any Protestant friends that quote from Christian mystics. Maybe it's just my pool of Protestants.
Well there were Protestant mystics, but generally the trend has been towards a 'rationalisation' of religion, so the mystical is marginalised. As a critic once said, the Reformation took Christ out of the pulpit and put the pastor there instead. There was a tendency to favour knowledge of God over affective experience.

The idea that the Reformation set people free from the ignorance of tyrannical Catholicism is propaganda — the Protestant denominations were often stricter in their enforcement of discipline on their congregations, and grass-roots piety was seen as seditious and therefore regarded as dangerous.

If one wanted to be more post-modern, one could say the myths were taken away and replaced with a morality.

Because of their views of the soul, nationalism, and a "somewhat spiritually sterile environment," they were suspicious of the mystical?
The Reformation is something of an example of when one finds fault, fault-finding then goes on and on. And the Catholic Church is nothing if not mystical!

The Catholic Church was in the Protestant countries, effectively dismantled. All the symbols were removed. The Stations of the Cross that adorned every church, statues, paintings, rood screens, candlesticks, altars, Walls were whitewashed, relics discarded and paintings of saints forbidden (most found their way into parishioners’ houses). Guild groups dismantled, particular local feast days forbidden, common practice such as mystery plays and mummers outlawed.

With all this taken away, the people were stripped of the symbols of their faith. It's notable that the direct fruit of this was the re-emergence of paganism in the Protestant countryside, and the persecution of witches, something which was exceedingly rare in Catholic countries was commonplace in the Protestant.

Wasn't their environment infused with Catholic culture?
That culture was rigorously suppressed. Catholicism effectively suffered another wave of persecution. Simple spiritual practices were outlawed. In Geneva, a woman was burned at the stake for putting flowers on her husband's grave. An extreme example, but an example of how simple expression was frowned upon if not actively castigated.

People need symbols. They need simple myths around which to construct otherwise complex spirituals paths, values and practices. Without them, they are lost.
 
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Christ points out that the publican in the Temple is justified before God, because his prayer is pleasing to God. So he was not ‘totally depraved’. Peter baptised Cornelius and his household because it was clear to him they had been baptsied by the Holy Spirit before they had even heard of Christ. And they weren’t even Jews, but they were pleasing to God. So not totally depraved.

Christ admired the faith of the centurion ... and so it goes...

The accepted Catholic teaching is that because of the fall of Adam, man’s nature is wounded. His eye to the supernatural is occluded, because God withdrew that transcending grace, and only God can reinstate it, but that does not mean man cannot be naturally good, nor that nothing he does is pleasing to God.)

You're right. The Protestant view of human nature is rather bleak and pessimistic!

I recently started to monitor a few Orthodox blogs on Facebook, because I've been wanting to learn more about their position on theological issues. One blog (click here for this blogger's full critique of TULIP) restates what you said about Calvinism and total depravity:

Where some theologians believed that man retained some capacity to please God, the Calvinists believe that man was incapable of pleasing God due to the radical effect of the Fall on the totality of human nature. The Scots Confession took the extreme position that the Fall eradicated the divine image from human nature: “By this transgression, generally known as original sin, the image of God was utterly defaced in man, and he and his children became by nature hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin.” (The Book of Confession 3.03; italics added)

But it also goes on the highlight an important point you haven't mentioned, so I would like to hear your opinion on this. Calvinists rely heavily on Augustinian tradition while overlooking the broader tradition of early Christianity. Because of this they would view Irenaeus' view of the Fall as bizarre:

The Reformed understanding of the Fall derives from Augustine’s interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Augustine assumed that Adam and Eve were mature adults when they sinned. This assumption led to a more catastrophic understanding of the Fall. However, Augustine’s understanding represented only one reading of Genesis and was not reflective of the patristic consensus. Another reading of Genesis can be found in Irenaeus of Lyons, widely regarded as the leading Church Father of the second century. Irenaeus believed Adam and Eve were not created as fully mature beings, but as infants or children who would grow into perfection (Against the Heretics 4.38.1-2; ANF Vol. 1 p. 521).

I take it you side with Irenaeus?
 
Last edited:
You're right. The Protestant view of human nature is rather bleak and pessimistic!
Yup.

Calvinists rely heavily on Augustinian tradition while overlooking the broader tradition of early Christianity. Because of this they would view Irenaeus' view of the Fall as bizarre ... I take it you side with Irenaeus?
Yes, I often wonder whether I am an Orthodox Catholic, or a Catholic Orthodox ...

Augustine was an ‘unhappy dualist’, a Manichean who grew dissatisfied with their world view and gravitated to Platonism, which alleviated his problems but still left him questioning. He met Ambrose of Milan, a Christian Platonist, and was brought into Christianity through him.

Augustine’s view of the world gets darker as he gets older, and his writings span the full range of his shift in mood and temperament. Suffice to say that at his darkest, he’s too much, even for Catholicism! The doctrine of Original Sin, promulgated by the Council of Trent in the 16th century steered a course between Augustine and Aquinas … but I happen to think it is still too dark … the Orthodox have a different view, but that too has its problems.

Luther was another pessimist with regard to the human condition, and his theology was formed within a very Augustinian context, and this went on to influence the theology of the later reformers, Calvin, Zwingli et al.

Your point about the loss of the Greek Fathers is a good one. It was very much the case until the middle of the last century when theologians like Ratzinger/pope elect Benedict spoke of the ‘intellectual aridity’ in the Catholic universities who had fallen back on a dry and tedious Thomism in the defence of Catholicism being opposed by a fast-changing world. They discovered the Greek Fathers and a seismic shift took place.

My view is informed by my Platonism.

The ‘maturity’ of Adam and Eve is, I think, an outmoded way of thought. Whether they were ‘adults’ or ‘children’ opens up areas of debate, but I would argue that God does not hold to account those who are by their nature incapable of making choices. To be a ‘sin’ requires full knowledge and the free choice and capacity to comprehend that we are doing that which we know to be wrong.

In Plato’s view, the eternal soul dwells in a state of eternal bliss in the contemplation of the Divine. For some reason, commonly presented as the soul becoming satiated, the soul turned away, and in this turning away began to fall away from God. God then created the material world and the physical body to catch and arrest the falling soul … quite where it would have fallen to is not discussed, but I assume to its extinction, removed from its source.

There is then the classic platonic triumvirate: stasis–kinesis–genesis, rest-movement-becoming.

Perfection then is the reversal of the process – unbecoming (freeing the soul from the flesh) and it will rise naturally to the contemplation of God).

This idea of a primordial perfection is not unique to Plato, it’s a universal. It’s almost a given for a mind that views time as cyclic as man did, living in the world we live in. But it is dualist, and sees the physical world as essentially disposable.

St Maximus turned this platonic dictum on its head. Following Scripture, which is holistic, and which implies the individual soul is created (and not eternal), he reworked the triumvirate as becoming-movement-rest. Thus created nature is brought forth ‘out of nothing’ in the beginning, and its coming-to-be is itself a movement (from nothing to something) and this movement continues until it reaches the ‘omega point’, its perfection and its fulness, in the case of the soul, its deification, at which point it becomes one with the Divine (by adoption, by being drawn up ‘out of itself’ into the contemplation of the Divine.

(It is important to understand deification is not the realising of a pre-existing intrinsic condition of which the soul is somehow ignorant. It is not the soul finding its own perfection, as the perfect soul is not itself divine.)

The genesis-kinesis-stasis view sits in accord with Scripture (and, btw, evolution as we currently understand it). So in my view man is formed from the use of the earth, which I interpret as man being brought forth by nature in its evolutionary arc, etc.

At some point man evolves into what the scholars would call a ‘rational’ creature. Not to imply that animals are irrational, but rather than man becomes a self-conscious intellect. It is here that I would locate the Fall … and here I could accept the idea of humanity as being an emerging nature growing towards its maturity and its perfection.
 
The genesis-kinesis-stasis view sits in accord with Scripture (and, btw, evolution as we currently understand it). So in my view man is formed from the use of the earth, which I interpret as man being brought forth by nature in its evolutionary arc, etc.

This is certainly the popular view, that man is the best that nature has to offer thus far in its evolution. If only evolution were a stepladder where each new species is an improvement over the previous. Unfortunately evolution does not work that way. It picks and chooses randomly. Sometimes it picks good adaptations to thrive and sometimes we get a backslide to a less well adapted species. I do not see humanity as the pinnacle of anything; in many ways humans are the worst adaption evolution has ever put on this planet. Our history is some good and mostly evil and we are not getting better in any significant way.
 
Protestant view if human nature?
As opposed to we are all sinners and original sin?
Well the Protestant view is that sin corrupted human nature absolutely, to the point where man can do nothing pleasing to God.
The C/O view is that sin has wounded man, but be that as it may, man can still do things pleasing to God.

I find the C/O view of humanity the least bleak and most optimistic.
 
Back
Top