Posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:14 AM PST by lockeliberty
In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges1 and Charles Ryrie2 who taught a reductionistic doctrine of solafide which absolutized the word “alone” in the phrase “justification by faith alone” and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ’s Lordship, love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone.3 In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of solafide.4 A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day.
Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.5
Modern Evangelicalism has done the same thing to sola scriptura that Hodges and Ryrie did to solafide. But unfortunately so little attention is paid to the doctrine of sola scriptura today that even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when the topic is raised. Contradictory and insufficient definitions of sola scriptura are commonplace not only among broadly Evangelical authors but among Reformed authors as well. In this chapter we shall examine this aberrant modern Evangelical concept of solo scriptura and explain why it is imperative that the Evangelical church recognize it to be as dangerous as the distorted concepts of solafide that are prevalent in the Church today.
EVANGELICAL INDIVIDUALISM
The modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of Tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the “sole basis of authority”6 Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer.
We have already seen that there is a major difference between the concept of Scripture and tradition taught by the classical Reformers and the concept taught by the Anabaptists and their heirs. The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but the only authority whatsoever. The Enlightenment added the philosophical framework in which to comprehend this individualism. The individual reason was elevated to the position of final authority. Appeals to antiquity and tradition of any kind were ridiculed. In the early years of the United States, democratic populism swept the people along in its fervor.7 The result is a modern American Evangelicalism which has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism.
Perhaps the best way to explain the fundamental problem with the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura would be through the use of an illustration to which many believers may be able to relate. Almost every Christian who has wrestled with theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations of Scripture. If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, “Because the Bible teaches premillennialism.” If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will likely be, “Because that is what the Bible teaches.” Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?
The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means — to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.
A fundamental and self-evident truth that seems to be unconsciously overlooked by proponents of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is that no one is infallible in his interpretation of Scripture. Each of us comes to the Scripture with different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most importantly, sinfulness. Because of this we each read things into Scripture that are not there and miss things in Scripture that are there. Unfortunately, a large number of modern Evangelicals have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), founder of the Disciples of Christ, who naively believed he could come to Scripture with absolutely no preconceived notions or biases. We have already mentioned Campbell’s naive statement, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”8
The same ideas were expressed by Lewis Sperry Chafer, the extremely influential founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Chafer believed that his lack of any theological training gave him the ability to approach scriptural interpretation without bias. He said, “the very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”9 This, however, is simply impossible. Unless one can escape the effects of sin, ignorance, and all previous learning, one cannot read the Scriptures without some bias and blind spots. This is a given of the post-Fall human condition.
This naive belief in the ability to escape one’s own noetic and spiritual limitations led Campbell and his modern Evangelical heirs to discount any use of secondary authorities. The Church, the creeds, and the teachings of the early fathers were all considered quaint at best. The discarding of the creeds is a common feature of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura. It is so pervasive that one may find it even in the writings of prominent Reformed theologians. For example, in a recently published and well-received Reformed systematic theology text, Robert Reymond laments the fact that most Reformed Christians adhere to the Trinitarian orthodoxy expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.10 He openly calls for an abandonment of the Nicene Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept. One cannot help but wonder how this is any different than the Unitarians rejection of creedal orthodoxy. They call for the rejection of one aspect of Nicene Trinitarianism while Reymond calls for the rejection of another. Why is one considered heretical and the other published by a major Evangelical publishing house?
An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the great nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the most zealous opponents of creeds “have been those who held corrupt opinions?”11 This is still the case today. The one common feature found in many published defenses of heretical doctrines aimed at Evangelical readers is the staunch advocacy of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura with its concomitant rejection of the subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds. The first goal of these authors is to convince the reader that sola scriptura means solo scriptura. In other words, their first goal is to convince readers that there are no binding doctrinal boundaries within Christianity.
In his defense of annihilationism, for example, Edward Fudge states that Scripture “is the only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject?”12 He adds that the individual should weigh the scriptural interpretations of other uninspired and fallible Christians against Scripture.’13 He does not explain how the Christian is to escape his own uninspired fallibility. The doctrinal boundaries of Christian orthodoxy are cast aside as being historically conditioned and relative.14 Of course, Fudge fails to note that his interpretation is as historically conditioned and relative as any that he criticizes.15
Another heresy that has been widely promoted with the assistance of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is hyper-preterism or pantelism.16 While there are numerous internal squabbles over details, in general advocates of this doctrine insist that Jesus Christ returned in AD. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem and that at that time sin and death were destroyed, the Adamic curse was lifted, Satan was cast into the lake of fire, the rapture and general resurrection occurred, the final judgment occurred, mourning and crying and pain were done away with, and the eternal state began. The proponents of pantelism are even more vocal in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrinal boundaries than Fudge. Ed Stevens, for example, writes,
Even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don’t), it would not be an over-whelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because of their antiquity.17
This is a hallmark of the doctrine of solo scriptura, and it is a position that the classical Reformers adamantly rejected. Stevens continues elsewhere,
We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or C.S. Lewis.18
Here we see the clear rejection of scripturally based structures of authority. The authority of those who rule in the Church is rejected by placing the decisions of an ecumenical council of ministers on the same level as the words of any individual. This is certainly the democratic way of doing things, and it is as American as apple pie, but it is not Christian. If what Mr. Stevens writes is true, then Christians should not take the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity any more seriously than we take some idiosyncratic doctrine of Alexander Campbell or C.S. Lewis. If this doctrine of solo scriptura and all that it entails is true, then the Church has no more right or authority to declare Arianism a heresy than Cornelius Van Til would have to authoritatively declare classical apologetics a heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy would necessarily be an individualistic and subjective determination.
Another pantelist, John Noe, claims that this rejection of the authority of the ecumenical creeds “is what the doctrine of sola scriptura is all about.”19 As we have demonstrated, this is manifestly untrue of the classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. The doctrine of Scripture being espoused by these men is a doctrine of Scripture that is based upon anabaptistic individualism, Enlightenment rationalism, and democratic populism. It is a doctrine of Scripture divorced from its Christian context. It is no different than the doctrine of Scripture and tradition advocated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in numerous publications such as Should You Believe in the Trinity? in which individuals are urged to reject the ecumenical Christian creeds in favor of a new hermeneutical context.20 Yet the false idea that this doctrine is the Reformation doctrine pervades the thinking of the modern American Evangelical church. Unfortunately the widespread ignorance of the true Reformation doctrine makes it that much easier for purveyors of false doctrine to sway those who have been either unable or unwilling to check the historical facts.
(Please go to the link for the rest of the Authors arguements.)
SUMMARY
Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-highway.com ...
It is true that the early church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of apostolic origin. It is interesting; however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in church history. Just because a certain church father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles. There are numerous practices in which the early church engaged which it believed were of apostolic origin which are listed by Basil the Great, but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
On what basis do you determine what is and isn't "Apostolic Tradition?" By what authority?
Regarding Apostolic Tradition outside of the New Testament:
•Where is the canon of the New Testament revealed in the New Testament?
•Where are the authors of the New Testament revealed in the New Testament?
•Where does it say in the New Testament that divine revelation was completed with the death of the last Apostle?
•Where is polygamy prohibited in the New Testament?
"I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture."
•Where is Original Sin explicated in the New Testament?
When you cite early Christian writings, why do you only cite Tertullian? As someone else mentioned, he ended up as a Montanist eventually breaking with the Church. Or have I answered my own question?
Why do you value Tertullian's opinion regarding Apostolic Tradition more highly than the opinions of Fathers of the Church like:
Pope Clement I
Papias
Eusebius
Irenaues
Clement of Alexandria
Origen
Cyprian of Carthage
Athanasius
Basil the Great
Epiphanius of Salamis
Augustine
John Chrysostom
Of course you read Roman Catholic Church. Can you show me where my Lord says he establishes the Roman Catholic Church? Oh, and don't bother with the "Peter is the rock" since it is obviously a flawed interpretation
...The Catholic Church Fathers attest to that
I don't consider the catholic Church Fathers as scriptural, neither should you.
...the Catholic Church writes every single word of the N.T.
The Catholic Church writes the NT? Boy, you are in much worse shape than I thought. At least you exposed yourself as following a man-made religon.
If only yer logic were as cold as the temperature in yer necka d'woods
You start from a standard based upon the oral traditions of the 16th Century Heresiarchs. Now, I don't hold you personaly responsible for having been taught those views, but, don't expect this Cradle Catholic to adopt the same categories of thought the Oral traditons represent as they were but various recapitulations of old heresies.
I will stick with Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Succession - just like the AnteNicene Catholic Church Fathers did.
If'n ya desire I decamp from the Pope and pitch my tent in the heretical fields, prove to me, citing either the New Testament or the AnteNicene Catholic Church Fathers, that Jesus would establish a Church, say to folks "He who hears you (Catholic Church) hears me" and describes that nascent Catholic Churh as "The Pillar and Ground of Truth," and then that that Chruch, despite having Jesus send the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it al truth, that it would nevertheless fail, that it would teach error, and that it would lead others into serious and fractious heresies and then mebbe we can talk:)<>
The date was the issue, not the FACT of Easter. sheesh...Ya call that an arguement?<>
I just defend :)<>
OK, how's about Cyril of Jerusalem:
This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.
But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.
Then we have Gregory of Nyssa
The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.
"1 And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead. 2 Be thou watchful, and establish the things that remain, which were ready to die: for I have found no works of thine perfected before my God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst hear; and keep [it], and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 But thou hast a few names in Sardis that did not defile their garments: and they shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh shall thus be arrayed in white garments; and I will in no wise blot his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. 6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. "
canz we talk?
It is a mere historical truism that others set up their churches in opposition to His Church<>
BTW, it has always been obvious to me how America mimics Laodicea
Now, it is the case that many follow Calvin and judge as false the Church that judged him a heretic, but, such is life.:)
I have never been able to figure out exactly why the Church to whom Jesus gave authority to decide disputes "..and if he won't hear you, let him be as a heathen..." is considered false while the man the Church with authority condemned, Calvin, is considered an authority, but, there it is...<>
Is this an example of ~your~ cold, hard logic?
LOL
I cite Isaiah 22 merely to demonstrate the reality of this historical office to those who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and who might be skeptical regarding the historical existence of this office.
I am not treating the passage as a type. I am citing the passage as an example of a historical fact, the fact that Kings of the House of David gave to their vice-regents a key representing their plenary authority in the King's abscence.
Secondly, I take the this historical office to be a type for a superior office to a superior Davidic King. Old Testament Davidic Kings who held the keys to the House of David are types for the superior New Testament King of the House of David who holds the keys to the House of David:
Revelation 3:7"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Jesus, the superior Davidic King, gives the "keys of the kingdom" to the superior vice-regent (the Vicar of Christ or the pope). The New Testament office of Vice-Regent is superior to the office of vice-regent in the Old Testament since the new Vice-Regent holds the office of the Vicar of Christ:
Matthew 16:19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
There are other interpretations within the passage possible, namely the peg that was being broken off was Peter, (although it is not one i personally accept). Furthermore, this authority presumes that the King is absent. This would be contrary to the words of Christ in many passages of Scripture, especially since Christ himself speaks to the Church at Philadelphia that He holds the key (Revelation 3:7).
The passage in Revelation indicates that Jesus is the power behind the keys or the ultimate "keeper of the keys" just as the Davidic kings in the Old Testament were the "power behind the keys" and the office.
Again forgive me, but this is not really germane to the point made, namely that scripture was consulted to verify the word of the Apostle. Earlier in the passage, Paul's method is described as reasoning from the scriptures. In particular, see Acts 17:2-3. Since the audience included devout Greeks, there is no reason that Paul would have acted differently among the Bereans.
The point is that the Bereans accepted the gospel message which they received from Paul and Silas. The gospel message is not contained in the Old Testament, but only foreshadowed. Therefore, the Bereans accepted the Good News as not contradictory to the Old Testament.
Paul made converts of many other peoples who were not familiar with the Old Testament. The method of prospective converts checking Apostolic Teaching against the Old Testament simply could not have been normative for most peoples being evangelized. Thus your further point regarding a common hermeneutic is moot.
There is some dispute over whether or not the writings of Paul were in the process of being considered inspired.
Well where should we go to settle the dispute? What does the Bible say?
Matthew 18:17The ITimothy 3 passage is quoted out of context. Perhaps you should have included verse 14If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
These things write I unto theee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. I Timothy 3:14-15 KJV. The context here is clearly writing, and written instruction.
And what do these written instructions tell us is the "pillar and foundation of truth"?
Finally, original sin can be derived from scripture, Refer to Hebrews 7:9-10, if Levi paid a tith in Abraham, i sinned in Adam.
It's implicit in Scripture as is the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine is quite complex, however, and even within Catholicism has not been defined de fide:
VI. NATURE OF ORIGINAL SINThis is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice. We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
1. Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.2. Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
3. The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
And I've typed enough for one day ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.