Posted on 04/25/2008 8:21:20 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Theologians past and present have used a bouquet of initials and analogies to describe Calvinist doctrine.
Historically, the Reformed Synod of Dort in the Netherlands delineated the differences between Calvinism and the teachings of James Jacobus Arminius. For the sake of simplicity—and playing on an association with the best-known Dutch flower—those teachings have been summarized through the TULIP acrostic.
• Total depravity. Human beings are dead in their sins, and they stand justly condemned before God, unable to do anything to save themselves.
• Unconditional election. From eternity, God in his sovereignty chose specific human beings to be saved. That salvation was determined entirely by God, not simply God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to his offer of grace.
• Limited atonement. Also known as “particular redemption,” the doctrine teaches the death of Jesus Christ was intended for the remission of the sins of elect human beings only; in other words, the intention of the atonement and its effects are the same.
• Irresistible grace. Many Calvinists prefer the term “effectual calling” to express this idea—God’s call to salvation will not fail to bring about the repentance and faith of the elect.
• Perseverance of the saints. This doctrine teaches all true believers in Christ will be saved because God grants them faith to persist to the end of life, and God will keep them safe.
Timothy George, founding dean of Samford University’s Beeson Divinity School, has proposed an alternative floral acrostic. George, a Reformed theologian, recommended a change in terminology from TULIP to ROSES—radical depravity, overcoming grace, sovereign election, eternal life and singular redemption.
James Leo Garrett, emeritus distinguished professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has noted Dortian Calvinists and early Arminians may not have differed on total depravity. Rather, he said, the key difference may have been whether faith and repentance were gifts from God—as the Calvinists taught—or human duties—as the Arminians insisted.
“That would call for FULIP (for faith) or RULIP (for repentance), not TULIP,” Garret said.
Without benefit of floral reminder, Garrett also has delineated the five points of Hyper-Calvinism:
• Supralapsarianism. God’s decree to elect some human beings for salvation and to damn others eternally is logically the first of God’s eternal decrees.
• Covenant of redemption. An eternal covenant exists among God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the redemption of elect humans through the Son.
• Eternal justification. The elect are justified in eternity without their demonstration of requisite faith in history.
• No offers of grace. Preachers should be discouraged from offering grace indiscriminately to their hearers, who presumably would include both the elect and the damned.
• Antinomianism. Christians are not obligated to obey the moral laws of the Old Testament.
God is completely good.
Sometimes people choose to do evil.
God prefers people to be good.
God is all powerful.
God is all knowing.
These imply that God gave people free will in the choice between good and evil.
I have to soundly reject the doctrines of Calvinism. Rather the Bible contradicts Calvinism by making the following clear:
God is completely good.
Sometimes people choose to do evil.
God prefers people to be good.
God is all powerful.
God is all knowing.
These imply that God gave people free will in the choice between good and evil.
SOMETIMES?
Does that mean you can choose not to sin?
ping
In as much as sin is an action yes. Sometimes we choose actions which are not sins. In so far a sin is a state of corruption, we are always partially corrupt, but not completely so. God put some good in us. Certainly all that is good comes from God, but hey we came from God. He created us. What is more He created us in his own image.
I’ve had this discussion with the “Calvinist swarm” before. And we’re not so far apart (Catholics and Calvinists) on the issue of free will, but it’s the issue of total depravity which causes a difference.
Both Catholics and Calvinists believe mankind is utterly incapable of his own salvation, and that even the desire for salvation is a grace given to him by God. Catholics tend to define unredeemed man as a slave to sin, while the redeemed man has been liberated. Calvinists see the unredeemed man as freely choosing wickedness, but then becoming a servant of Christ. Both perspectives, however, are completely apt, and used many times in the bible, including by the same people, such as Paul.
The question is: what is man’s will? Which experience of man properly defines “free will” or “servitude”? And the reason that Catholics and Calvinists answer this differently is because of the notion of total depravity. Simply put, Calvinists believe that every action by every unredeemed person is intrinsically evil. If God uses an unredeemed person, it is by trickery. Catholics hold that even as-yet unredeemed people can have a marginal amount of grace, which can inspire them to do draw near to God, in spite of competing sinful inclinations. Of course, even these distinctions are a matter of perspective, since Calvinists recognize that God can put order the cosmos so as to lead people to himself, and even Catholics recognize that ultimately, any good work which does not result in salvation is intrinsically futile, and thus, not really a good work.
I can think of at several doctrines which explain these opposing perspectives. One is the efficacy of sacraments. A hyper-Lutheran notion of faith alone holds counts sacraments as works. Only faith saves, the notion goes, but how does one get faith? Catholics hold that sacraments draw people towards further grace once receiving slight amounts of faith through prevening grace. Many Calvinists would hold any unredeemed person involving themselves in ritual is just vainly trying to save themselves.
Another doctrine is the purity of Mary. Calvinists hold that Mary became redeemed after committing sins. Thus, she fits the model of having been totally depraved prior to receiving irresistable grace. Catholics hold that having been untouched by original sin, Mary’s statement, “Let it be done unto me according to thine will” is a statement of her free will, which could not possibly choose goodness if she were absolutely depraved. Yet she stated this before encountering Christ in his own conception within her. And thus, a radically different notion of original sin emerges: Mankind was capable of rejecting the fruit in the garden, for all though Eve chose evil, the new Eve rejects evil (where the English text has Jesus calling Mary “woman,” in Aramaic, this word would have been “Eve”.)
It seems to me, any doctrine that holds the unsaved to be "total depraved", must either be absurd, or simply have a radical departure from what such a term means in common language. Normally I would take "totally depraved" to mean a person has absolutely no moral consciouses. Out of charity for the Calvinist position, I am willing to entertain that it means something more plausible, but I can't seem to find a meaning that fits the teachings of the Bible.
Jesus Himself compared the evil in men's heart to "yeast". A strange analogy if flour is also evil.
Jesus advised sinners to discard an eye or hand that caused them to stumble, rather than have their whole body thrown into hell. A curious suggestion if the rest of the body were totally corrupt as well.
And do not forget the parable of the talents. The unworthy servant who hid his talent in the dirt was certainly an example of a damned soul. But the damned soul was in possession of some investment from God. At judgment "what little he had" was "taken away". But he did have something. What was it under a doctrine of total depravity?
....and one more...
Man is Totally Depraved in that, in his unregenerated state he has no desire to draw near to God. It is not that every action is evil, but no action will be pleasing to God. Unregenerated man cannot and will not choose to follow God. God has to regenerate man first. Therefore, all who come to God do so at God’s will, not man’s.
Romans 3:11-12
None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
I'm not sure when you consider a man "regenerated", I have to guess you talking about being born again as a new creature? If so this is certainly something that happens upon condition of faith. Moreover always happens given those conditions according to John 3:16.
But then, deciding to have faith in God seems like a decision of the individual to me. Indeed, the central most important decision of our entire existence.
It seems odd that such a decision could be made without any desire at all to draw near to God.
Thus, for consistency, I can see why the Calvinists must reject the concept of free will in the matter. I will grant that these doctrines give mutual support, but I can't see much motivation for either outside of a perceived contradiction between God knowing what man will decide ahead of time, and yet still allowing man to choose.
Reading C.S. Lewis has cured me of supposing there is such a contradiction.
***It seems odd that such a decision could be made without any desire at all to draw near to God. ***
You are ABSOLUTELY right in this. Unregenerated man CANNOT draw near to God. He has no DESIRE to draw near to God. He is DEAD in his sins, a slave to sin, and has no ability to draw near to God. God puts the desire, the faith, in man to draw him to God. It is all the works of God, so that no man can boast. It is the FREE gift of grace, not a grace that man can earn.
As I have said before, this is how “free will” works:
Unregenerated man has the “free will” to choose to sin or not sin at any given time.
Regenerated man has the “free will” to sin, not sin, or please God.
We all make choices every day. However, the unregenerated man will NEVER choose to please God, because he can’t.
Agreed it can't be earned. But it seems to me it can be either accepted or rejected.
Unregenerated man has the “free will” to choose to sin or not sin at any given time.
OK, well that's is hardly what I would call "totally depraved".
Regenerated man has the “free will” to sin, not sin, or please God. We all make choices every day. However, the unregenerated man will NEVER choose to please God, because he can’t.
It seems to me the "unregenerated" man can start pleasing God by accepting the free gift of grace. As I understand it all of heaven rejoices on such occasions.
***Agreed it can’t be earned. But it seems to me it can be either accepted or rejected.***
This puts man ahead of God. In your scenario, God offers the bait and man can grab it or not. This means that man can, to use a fishing reference, skunk God. God is fishing for converts and either the fish (us) take the bait or not.
I think that God NEVER fails in what he sets out to do. God is not on a fishing trip, he knows exactly who his children are, and he knew it before the beginning of time.
Uhm, let's reverse the role of man and God in this situation: Supposing God was a creature trapped in sin, unable to escape on His own, and we offered Him a gift of salvation but we, being infinantly just, wise, and powerful decided to yield to Him the choice of accepting or declining, that last bit would put Him above us?
Look there ain't much danger of God ever being below us, excepting in a manner He chooses. Which He has indeed done. For instance, hanging on a cross wasn't exactly a place of honor now was it? He washed the feet of the disciples to make a point, didn't He?
I think that God NEVER fails in what he sets out to do.
Thus if anything ever displeases Him, He must have chosen to endow it with the power to do so. And, boy oh boy has He been displeased in the past. Wrathful even. Odd that God would get mad at a thing for doing what He meant it to do.
God is not on a fishing trip,...
Ironic choice of words considering the time Christ said "Come let me make you fishers of men."
...he knows exactly who his children are, and he knew it before the beginning of time.
We don't disagree that He knew it before the beginning of time. And my suspicion is that reflection on this fact was the motivation behind the Calvinist doctrines. I simply hold that this does not imply He could not have given us choice in the matter of trusting Him, anymore than it means we didn't have choice in other matters, including trivial ones. Presumably you do not think we are automatons?
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.