My pastor did an excellent job communicating the Calvinist belief that man cannot accomplish anything good on his own. This ideas was expressed via the teachings of Johnathan Edwards and Augustine that
"Man will always act according to his strongest inclination at that moment."
Now, the idea here is that our inclinations (and therefore our actions) are (because of the fall) always evil, and only by the grace of God can we do anything good, including believe and have faith. Salvation is accomplished solely by God, through the sacrifice of Jesus and the election of God's chosen people who are able to believe through power given them by God. Going back to the Edwards/Augustine quote above, God changes our inclinations, allowing us to act differently, to believe, and to be saved. Man has absolutely no part in it anything.
I can see how this is comforting. The ball is in God's court. I don't have to worry about it. But to me it is extremely troubling. If you always act according to your strongest inclinations, you have absolutely no ability to change the course of your life whatsoever. You may think you can simply examine your inclinations/motivations, (this was suggested in the sermon) and try to change them, but if this idea is correct, the action you took to examine your motivations was in iteself a response to your strongest inclination at that moment. You are a deterministic being. Your life has already been determined, and your future actions, thoughts, feelings, and emotions are already determined, unless God intervines.
Of course the whole Calvinist system is based on the belief that (for the elect) God WILL intervine, and help us change our inclinations, giving us the ability to believe in Jesus and be saved.
But that's not the only problem with Calvinism. As I've discussed before, the problem of evil is a very difficult one for anyone who believes in a personal god. The ugly God of Calvinism is a god who created this world, orchastrated evil, saves some people of His own choosing, and damns the rest to hell for not believing something that isn't true. Calvinism heightnens the problem of evil so greatly that a better alternative is that God does not exist at all.
I think the Arminian system gives a much more believable (and palletable) scenario, while still taking seriously what the Bible says about election: That God, by his grace, created man with a choice, and "elects" some by pursuing them, (perhaps as a result of their choices) and further enabling them to choose better still.
A Calvinist might say "But you are undermining Gods soverignty! God is in control, not man!" Blogger Ken Schenck at the blog Quadrilateral Thoughts answers this well:
"If God can create the world out of nothing, then He is certainly able to empower a person, by his prevenient grace, to reach the smallest point of volition ex nihilo, a point of the barest will either to remain depraved as they are or to signify ever so slightly a desire for more grace... leading to God's empowerment to signify a desire for more grace still. Would you suggest that God is not clever enough to figure out how to do this, to empower totally depraved humanity to begin to make a choice?"
Now back to what I mentioned above, about sermons like this, and how they can damage my faith: There is nothing wrong with going to a church that teaches ideas that are contrary to your own beliefs. If one is actively engaged with their faith, and continually examining their beliefs, this is inevitable. But when ideas like this are presented in a way that suggests something is wrong if you don't totally agree, or that there isn't room for discussion, I begin to wonder if I am worshiping in the right place. I'm not suggesting that any belief be accepted as equal, but some discussion of alternate (but equally biblical) views should be accepted.
Of course, a Calvinist would claim that Arminianism is unbiblical based on their selected proof texts...
21 comments:
I agree with you, Calvinism makes God ugly, and people do it to make God something that they like and understand. Your pastor argues that the strongest inclination is what you will act on because if you act on it then it is the strongest inclination, it is circular. Who can really measure what inclination is stronger anyway (God maybe Jer 17:10).
I don't believe in Total Depravity, and think the idea is totally depraved. Calvinist say Arminianism is unbiblical because of their proof texts, but that is part of the problem with most theology, the whole is too hard to comprehend so they go to a text out of context for their point. Most of your pastor's sermon was on Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (NASB) Taking this to mean that no one can understand their heart, that it lies to you, and is evil. But the context is contrasting a heart that turns away from God (Jer 17:5-6) to one that is trusting in God (Jer 17:7-8), and sets up that God understands the heart and God will judge them based on what they have done (Jer 17:10). It is not a statement of total depravity, but that those that turned away from God do depraved things.
Other proof texts are Genesis 6:5 "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." But they ignore the exception of Noah who found favor(Gen 6:8), why, because he was righteous and walked with God(Gen 6:9). Their is a video of Mark Driscoll going off on why Noah was not righteous, guess he didn't read verse 9. Then there is Genesis 8:21 where God promises not to destroy the earth again because of man, even though his intentions be evil from his youth. That is not a description of how evil man is, but that God won't punish everything if men return to being like Genesis 6:5, and man will need to grow out of their youth and selfishness.
Total Depravity comes from the doctrine of Original Sin, that everyone is born with a sin nature. This is not from Judaism but is a Christian invention, that started in the Western Church, the Orthodox Church (oldest church) doesn't have it either.
Thanks Mark for pointing out the prooftexting that is required to support the doctrine of Total Depravity. I wonder what would happen if more people would open their Bibles during a sermon and read the context of the verses being discussed. Might there be more discussion about these doctrines, instead of so much head nodding?
Also, I love your statement "I don't believe in Total Depravity, and think the idea is totally depraved." You made me smile, so you're being honored with the latest "Quote of the day". :)
Hi Joe,
I sympathize with much of what you write. I just wanted to mention a resource that might be an encouragement to you. I have a free online read at xCalvinist.com that will explain why Calvinism is really pantheism dressed up in Christian lingo. Calvinism falls afoul of the truth for one major reason: they change the meaning of verbs depending on the grammatical subject (such as when God is the subject). A wonderful article that shows this is one by Prof. Thomas Edgar on foreknowledge. If you google his name and the word “foreknowledge,” it will bring you to the article.
Incidentally, I think that Choice is the only basis for sentient being. This means that individuation of persons is only possible if each of us brings our choices ex nihilio (out of nothing). Calvinism denies man’s predicative power, while making a clever show of maintaining it by referring to man as capable of “secondary causes” etc., which, of course, renders the word “causes” meaningless.
A few more points if I may. Gr. dunamai, often translated “can” can also mean “may” on “wills to” depending on the context. That is, Gr. dunamai behaves as “can” does in informal, not formal, English. This has tremendous import for verses like John 6:44, which are often claimed by Calvinists to show divine irresistibility. My book (the free online read) discusses Gr. dunamai at length. And so, what God does create for us is the ability (form) to choose, but never the choice itself.
Also, I have found that assumptions drive exegesis, interpretation, and even the standard lexicons, so I have personally found that it's a mistake to simply trust the standard lexicons on any controversial word, without checking it out myself through a resource like BlueLetterBible.com, which has a helpful concordance feature that allows me to look up every verse in which a particular word occurs.
Sorry if I’m sounding too much like a Dutch uncle--perhaps you already know all or most of these things. At any rate you have a flair for language and thought, so I hope you keep blogging.
Cordially,
Daniel,
Thanks so much for your comments. You're not being a "Dutch Uncle", I have a lot to learn still... Your book looks very interesting; something that I'm sure I'll work my way through over time.
Take care,
-Joe
I've always hated Calvinism. Denial of free will makes people worse than the Devil. Not even he goes that far. He tries to tempt people right? Pretty pointless if there was no free will. If you couldn't choose to buy it or not then it wouldn't be properly called temptation.
Yet, its not just Calvinism that makes God look ugly. The doctrine that God will send everyone to burn in hell for all eternity regardless of whether their only sin is a little white lie or if they are a childmolester...in short with no regard to whether they actually deserve such a punishment, well this makes God look almost as bad as Calvinism itself. But Christianity in all its forms is tied down to this doctrine. Whatever coherence the Christian message of the cross has (and it isn't a lot) is dependent on this blasphemous assessment of God. It would make much more sense to believe that God, being just, will justly punish us for each sin we commit in proportion to how bad it is. But that would not be Christianity. So what? Perhaps there comes a point where we must acknowledge that Christianity is based on an unhealthy notion that God gets his jollies by punishing the relatively innocent with a punishment that far exceeds their guilt, and that it is incompatible with his justice (not to mention anything of mercy).
Or at least that Pauline Christianity is based on this blasphemous assessment of God. Whatever Christianity was before Paul, it obviously looked alot more like the epistles of James than anyone today wants Christianity to look, and somehow I have a hard time seeing James buy into this all or nothing scenario where you either get no punishment or nothing but punishment 24/7 for all eternity. Seems to me James would have enjoyed a good theory of proportional punishment for all.
Russ (and everyone else),
Your comment has been removed because I refuse to let my blog be an outlet for professing Christians to make fools of themselves (and thereby all Christians). There are too many professing Christians who say and do stupid things, and I am ashamed that the public perception is that all Christians are like "that".
However, I love and encourage good discussion.
Russ, third of your comment is in a good spirit and contributes to the discussion. You're welcome to re-post your comment, but please leave out all racist references, and references to to Hitler, brainwashing, etc.
-Joe
"Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Arminius is heretic, read Westminster confession of faith, during 1642-1649.
it means h who bear the view of Arminius is a cult. Now you may remove this post!
"Arminius is heretic, read Westminster confession of faith, during 1642-1649."
A confession written by Manichean heretics proves that Arminus is a heretic for not agreeing with their heretical Manichean foolishness? Grow up.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I remember that John Calvin burned Michael Servatus at the stake for not believing in Calvinism. I also remember that he wrote a book excusing his actions and mocking how Servetus cried out "misericordias" (mercy) saying that he "bellowed like a dog."
I remember. But you don't, which is why you follow in that demon Calvin's footsteps.
To beowulf2k8:
Thanks for that info, but actually I’m not into Arminius, even Pelagius or even Calvin, it so happened that Calvin have done that, I don’t care what he had done to Michael Servetus. it so happened that Calvin have this view.
What I believed is the authority of the Bible, so many passages from the Bible that that a dead person s a totally depraved, elected unconditionally, had a limited atonement, given grace By God irresistibly, And God will persevere all the saints or elect.
To Joe: “DOCTRINE DIVIDES; CHRIST UNITES.” Many in the church today would echo this sentiment. To them, controversial doctrines simply promote disunity in the body.
I think your pastor did not explain well about the doctrine of total depravity.
Your pastor I think should teach “Systematic Theology”.
I Agree with you Joe when you said , (Jer 17:10). It is not a statement of total depravity, because Jeremiah 17:10 is only a part of Total Depravity.
Regarding “Free will”
What is free will - the freedom or ability to choose
the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agency.
But Pauls says: Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
Eph 2:2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
This is not true based on v. 2-3 it says...
ANOTHER: Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
This doctrine of Total Inability (Total Depravity), which declares that men are dead in sin, does not mean that all men are equally bad, nor that any man is as bad as he could be, nor that any one is entirely destitute of virtue, nor that human nature is evil in itself, nor that man's spirit is inactive, and much less does it mean that the body Is dead. What it does mean is that since the fail man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation. His corruption is extensive but not necessarily intensive.
So, the doctrine of total depravity (or total inability) says that all men, as a consequence of the Fall, are born morally corrupt, enslaved to sin, at enmity with God, and unable to please Him or even of themselves to turn to Christ for salvation. (Thus the necessity of a gracious, unconditional election.)
There is no such thing as free will as far as spiritual goodness is concern.
Isa 64:6
For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
to beowulf28
I do not begin as Calvinists and defend a system. I begin as Bible-believing Christians who want to put the Bible above all systems of thought. But over the years—many years of struggle—we have deepened in our conviction that Calvinistic teachings on the five points are Biblical and therefore true.”
Anonymous says: "What I believed is [not Calvin per se but] the authority of the Bible, so many passages from the Bible that that a dead person s a totally depraved, elected unconditionally, had a limited atonement, given grace By God irresistibly, And God will persevere all the saints or elect."
That's a lie and you know it. There are not "so many passages from the Bible" that teach such garbage but perhaps there are a few passage in Paul that teach some of this garbage. But is Paul any better than Calvin in the final analysis? He killed people for not agreeing with him too. Yeah, he supposedly stopped doing that when he became a Christian...but judging from some of his doctrinal positions (the ones you outline above for instance) I call that into question. Paul is not the Bible. He tends to disagree with what everyone else in the Bible says--he doesn't really belong, and if you accept him as part of the Bible you do it only because you accept the decision of some Catholic Pope or Catholic council that made the idiotic mistake of adding him to the Bible.
In Paul you may find this crap taught, but when you try to make the Old Testament teach it, you are twisting it just like Paul did. In Isaiah's passage about all our righteousness being like filthy rags, for example, Isaiah is simply talking about his own generation and how wicked it was and why the Babylonian captivity was taking place to punish them. Contextually you will find that to be the case. The idea is not that its impossible to be righteous. This is Pauline spin, which coincidentally agrees with the position taken by Satan in Job.
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
Or in other words, with that verb translated more accurately, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who goes on sinning is the slave of sin."
The idea is that until you repent, you are in slavery to the sin you are committing. It is not that you are born a sinner.
Besides, slaves can run away from their masters--can't they? And the Law of Moses commands the Israelites not to return a runaway slave to their master, but to give him/her asylum.
Therefore, when we run away from sin (i.e. repent) God does not return us to sin, but gives us asylum. Paul's theory is obliterated by this verse, not established.
To beowulf2k8:
I appreciate your presumptions, so let say you don’t believed to the Pauline epistles, as well as his letter to timothy that All Scripture is God-breathed…. (2Ti 3:16 )
According to John 8:34
You said also “The idea is that until you repent, you are in slavery to the sin you are committing. It is not that you are born a sinner.”
So it means that human are naturally born righteous, pure, no sins, totally alive not dead spiritually?
How about this few verses you said earlier from the bible.
Gen 8:21b Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Psa 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
Isa 48:8 You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth.
Psa 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
Psa 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."
Notice how this is limited to the wicked. Job 31:18 shows the other side of the coin "from my youth the fatherless grew up with me as with a father, and from my mother's womb I guided the widows."
Now, if the wicked literally go astray from the womb, then Job literally supported the fatherless and widows from the womb.
Learn how to read poetry properly. Its called poetic exaggeration.
Psa 51:5 your translation is a biased paraphrase. The KJV translates it properly "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
David has just lied in prayer to God (verse 4) saying "against you only have I sinned" when in reality he sinned against Bathsheba, against the unborn child, and against her husband in murdering him. So the child rebukes David from the womb, saying "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." David is amazed, and responds to God "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom." The phrase "hidden part" refers to the womb from which the child is supposed to have spoken to David and rebuked his lie.
Jer 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."
Context. Context. Context. This is not directed against all humanity, but against certain people. Besides, there is a huge difference between being "ACCUSTOMED to doing evil" and being born evil. Pelagius in fact argued that we sin because we are raised in a wicked environment and accustom ourselves to doing evil not because we are born that way, and Augustine through a conniption fit about it...yet that is what this verse says, isn't it?
Isa 48:8 "You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth."
Is he speaking to an individual here or to the nation? I think it is to the nation. The nation was a rebel from birth, because while it was being born--that is, while Moses was up receiving the 10 commandments--the nation was already breaking them down below by worshipping the golden calf.
Gen 8:21b "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
Amazingly, here God uses the idea of man's inclination to evil as a reason to show mercy, not severity. For he says that because man's inclination is evil, therefore he will no longer destroy the world with a flood. Here we find two things: (1) it is an inclination not an inherited guilt (2) God recognizes that man's weakness in this matter means he ought to have more (not less) mercy. On both points, Pauline theology fails to grasp what is being said. To Paulinists, man's weakness means God should be more severe (eternity in hell for every little sin), and they refuse to admit that it is only an inclination to evil and try to make it into inherited guilt or actual sin being committed at birth.
Gen 6:5 "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."
How great man's wickedness had become...this indicates an increase over time. This, then, supports the theory of Jer 13:23 and Pelagius that our sinful inclination is the result of being ACCUSTOMED to sin not of being born guilty of sin. Man's wickedness was not great on the earth from the very beginning--it BECAME great on the earth. Why? Because over time, society became more and more ACCUSTOMED to doing evil.
yah the genre of psalms :is prophesy inside poetry.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb:they go astray as soon as they be born,speaking lies.
The word rendered are “estranged” - means properly, “to go off, to turn aside,” or “away, to depart;” and then it comes to mean “to be strange,” or “a stranger.”
The phrase “from the womb,” refers, undoubtedly, to their birth and the idea is, that as soon as they begin to act they act wrong; they show that they are strangers to God.
"They go astray" The “manner” in which the persons here referred to did this, is indicated here by their “speaking lies.”
As soon as they be born, ok , The meaning is, not that they speak lies “as soon as” they are born, which could not be literally true,
but that this is the “first act.” The first thing “done” is not an act of holiness, but an act of sin showing what is in the heart.
who parents teaches his or her child to speak a lie?
Speaking Lies, they are false in their statement; false in their general character, this is the indication of the original depravity
“this” passage becomes a proper and an important text to demonstrate that this wickedness is not the result of temptation or example, but that it is the expression of the depravity of the heart by nature; that the tendency of man by nature is not to goodness, but to sin.
that the first developments of character are sinful; that there is something lying of sinful acts in people which makes it certain that they will act as they do; and that this always manifests itself in the first acts which they perform.
that's why a baby by his nature he always close his fist, when he first came up to his mothers womb, why? because of his nature, man is naturally self centered, that's one at least sin that a man has so many and already have.
You apparently are of the wicked who speak lies from the womb, because like all the wicked Calvinist liars who seek to blame their sins on God and make him the author of sin, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of Job 31:18.
You already brought forward Psa 58:3 and the misinterpretation of it which the teachers who brainwashed you make of it due to their functional illiteracy in not knowing how to read poetry. And I already responded by pointing you to another book of Hebrew poetry, namely Job, in which Job says in 31:18,
"from my youth the fatherless grew up with me as with a father, and from my mother's womb I guided the widows."
I pointed out how that if you are going to be a fool and take one of the poetic exaggerations literally, you will have to take both literally. The rest is, then, that the wicked are estranged from the womb, but the righteous guide widows from the womb!
But you refuse to admit that any refutation of your illiterate views has been made. You simply return to Psa 58:3 again, simply asserting AGAIN that is should be taken literally. How can a man as ignorant, illiterate by self imposition, as yourself even be taken seriously?
Psa 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb" -- you quibble now about the definition of the word "estranged" because what else can you do when it has been shown that in Biblical poetry we also have the opposite statement made of the righteous?
"from my youth the fatherless grew up with me as with a father, and from my mother's womb I guided the widows." (Job 31:18)
You are left with no recourse but to admit that your doctrine is false, or to languish in self imposed ignorance of the truth (lying from your mother's womb, no doubt, and mostly to yourself) and play with the meanings of the words in Psalm 58:3. Because, as all immoralist wicked Paulinists, you are incapable of dealing with Job 31:18. You are a huge disappointment, to me, to God, to anyone with a brain who happens to be reading this discussion.
Post a Comment