Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Total Depravity...


Recommended Posts

  • Members

    I can't fly in and of myself, but I can buy a plane ticket and ride in a plane as it flies. (Flying, in this metaphor, being salvation.)

    Arminians* (if I understand them correctly) seem to agree up to that point that we don't save ourselves, but we choose to "get on the plane". (And, they would argue, we can choose to get back off.)

    Calvinists, however, take it further and would say, not only can I not fly, I have no money for the ticket, so it must be purchased by someone else. I agree.

    Going even further, some Calvinists would say that I'm also incapable of walking and must be carried onto the plane. Even this, I can agree with.

    Going even further, Calvinists would say that the entire idea of flying was introduced to me by someone else, and I wouldn't have even bothered had I not been made excited about the idea. This too, I have no problem with, and agree completely.

    With each of these scenarios, there remains an element of personal choice, diminishing as it may be, it's still there.

    So each of these steps within the Calvinist' scenario presume my choice to get on the airplane (just my inability to fly, afford a ticket, actually walk onto the plane or come up with the idea on my own.)

    Hyper-Calvinists (as I will call them) take it a step further and say even my choice to get on the plane is made by someone else, so, like a 2-year-old, I'm told I will fly on the airplane, am carried to the plane, and placed in my seat and buckled in.

    In the end, it seems the concept of Total Depravity very much depends on how absolute you define the term "Total".

    None of my pets could, on their own, go to the vet. If I go outside, open the car door and say, "In!" My dogs, more than likely, would jump into the car, excited to be going somewhere. My cat (when I had one) would need to be crated, in the house, and carried, hissing and spitting to the car and then we could drive to the vet. Thus the distinction between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

    I see what we call Calvinism as emphasizing how small our part in our salvation is, while still acknowledging there is at least a small part we play. 

    I am introduced to the idea of salvation. I am encouraged toward the choice. Once made, I am comforted and strengthened by the Holy Spirit in that choice as I grow. The choice places me within the ability to receive the sanctification purchased on the cross. My part seems very trivial and small, but nonetheless, it is still there, as minuscule as it may be.

    It becomes tempting, when embracing Calvinism, to try to push it further, but that leads to an illogical conclusion, which in the end makes God into a blindfolded guy reaching into a basket of apples, randomly selecting a few. It robs God (metaphorically) of His choice, since without any consideration of our contribution, it logically must be arbitrary and random.

    *Being unfamiliar with the arguments Arminians make, I'm only assuming I'm representing them accurately here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem with Calvinism is that it has an unbiblical definition of works. It applies that term to any thought or physical action man does. This is not found in scripture. In fact biblical works is always and only a reference to OT law. 
 

 

The idea that man’s biblical response to Gods offer of salvation based on the sovereign design of God is works does not meet scripture or logic. When someone gives a gift of any kind and the intended receiver of that gift reaches out and receives that gift do we then also credit the receiver as being partially responsible for giving himself the gift? 
 

Yet this is what Calvinism teaches or at least it’s proponents often claim. It’s unbiblical and faulty logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, pastormitchell said:

The problem with Calvinism is that it has an unbiblical definition of works. It applies that term to any thought or physical action man does. This is not found in scripture. In fact biblical works is always and only a reference to OT law. 
 

 

The idea that man’s biblical response to Gods offer of salvation based on the sovereign design of God is works does not meet scripture or logic. When someone gives a gift of any kind and the intended receiver of that gift reaches out and receives that gift do we then also credit the receiver as being partially responsible for giving himself the gift? 
 

Yet this is what Calvinism teaches or at least it’s proponents often claim. It’s unbiblical and faulty logic.

The first problem is using the word "Calvinism" to describe things random people say, without regards to how well they line up with what John Calvin himself taught. Whatever label you want to call yourself, we can always find someone, spouting nonsense, under the same label. It doesn't mean that everyone who uses that label believes the exact same.

What you seem to be describing as Calvinism actually sounds like Arminianism, the polar opposite theological belief. 

The believe that we offer absolutely nothing at all to our salvation is in fact Hyper-Calvinism. And is illogical as I describe in the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Calvinism can be defined in a myriad of ways. The easiest point of contention is the idea that we have no role in our salvation. They say no man can come to God even if prompted by another, a Christian Holy Spirit filled Gospel breathing individual. 
 

This dichotomy that they present is actually an older heresy of Dualism, they deny that the exterior ( of our Soul, and Body ) can be used by the LORD to present himself. They suggest that only when the LORD is dwelling within the individual is then the LORD working the individuals salvation. - and there in lies the issue, they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit outside ones Body.

This is a form of dualism that is covered by re-definition of Biblical language. This doctrine ties into the doctrine of how they define the Sovereignty of the LORD. Which, is not a word ever found in scripture so they have more liberty to define, as it is not a word scripture bound. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, Danny, what you call hyperCalvinism above is mainstream Calvinism - those who believe in all five points of Calvinism. Some choose not to believe in all five points and still call themselves Calvinism - but they represent those outside mainstream Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism itself.

They teach that you have no choice in your salvation - not only is the gift of salvation of God (which I agree is a free gift offered to mankind because of what Jesus has done for us on the cross), but that your will was basically overridden by God, your faith was given by God, therefore your response itself was dictated or moved by God (ie. you were not given the ability to respond, but that God Himself caused you to respond).

Also, Calvinism teaches a form of works - ie. that you must endure to the end to be saved. Your enduring to the end ensures your salvation. If you don't endure to the end, ultimately you are not saved even if you thought you were for all those years. Whereas the Bible teaches God's preservation of the saints, not the perseverance of the saints (ie. for salvation). (Yes, true believers will cling to Christ - but if they struggle, doubt, or backslide, the Lord is still keeping them in His hand and will still bring them home to Heaven when they die - they are still His children. I am not referring to those who reject the Lord and His Word somewhere down the road after professing to be saved for so long. 1 John 2:19 indicates that those "professors" of salvation were never really saved in the first place - ie. they didn't lose their salvation; they never had it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Actually, Danny, what you call hyperCalvinism above is mainstream Calvinism - those who believe in all five points of Calvinism. Some choose not to believe in all five points and still call themselves Calvinism - but they represent those outside mainstream Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism itself.

They teach that you have no choice in your salvation - not only is the gift of salvation of God (which I agree is a free gift offered to mankind because of what Jesus has done for us on the cross), but that your will was basically overridden by God, your faith was given by God, therefore your response itself was dictated or moved by God (ie. you were not given the ability to respond, but that God Himself caused you to respond).

Also, Calvinism teaches a form of works - ie. that you must endure to the end to be saved. Your enduring to the end ensures your salvation. If you don't endure to the end, ultimately you are not saved even if you thought you were for all those years. Whereas the Bible teaches God's preservation of the saints, not the perseverance of the saints (ie. for salvation). (Yes, true believers will cling to Christ - but if they struggle, doubt, or backslide, the Lord is still keeping them in His hand and will still bring them home to Heaven when they die - they are still His children. I am not referring to those who reject the Lord and His Word somewhere down the road after professing to be saved for so long. 1 John 2:19 indicates that those "professors" of salvation were never really saved in the first place - ie. they didn't lose their salvation; they never had it).

I’ve never talked with a cal that believed one must endure to the end to be saved. Everyone I’ve spoken with( which is many) believe you will endure to the end because you are saved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Calvinism can be defined in a myriad of ways. The easiest point of contention is the idea that we have no role in our salvation. They say no man can come to God even if prompted by another, a Christian Holy Spirit filled Gospel breathing individual. 
 

This dichotomy that they present is actually an older heresy of Dualism, they deny that the exterior ( of our Soul, and Body ) can be used by the LORD to present himself. They suggest that only when the LORD is dwelling within the individual is then the LORD working the individuals salvation. - and there in lies the issue, they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit outside ones Body.

This is a form of dualism that is covered by re-definition of Biblical language. This doctrine ties into the doctrine of how they define the Sovereignty of the LORD. Which, is not a word ever found in scripture so they have more liberty to define, as it is not a word scripture bound. 

 

 

Odd that you say it can be defined in many different ways, then proceed to give a definitive definition. I would say that to claim any particular believe is real Calvinism, you'd need to show where in Calvin's Institutes it teaches exactly that. 

20 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Actually, Danny, what you call hyperCalvinism above is mainstream Calvinism - those who believe in all five points of Calvinism. Some choose not to believe in all five points and still call themselves Calvinism - but they represent those outside mainstream Calvinism, not mainstream Calvinism itself.

They teach that you have no choice in your salvation - not only is the gift of salvation of God (which I agree is a free gift offered to mankind because of what Jesus has done for us on the cross), but that your will was basically overridden by God, your faith was given by God, therefore your response itself was dictated or moved by God (ie. you were not given the ability to respond, but that God Himself caused you to respond).

Also, Calvinism teaches a form of works - ie. that you must endure to the end to be saved. Your enduring to the end ensures your salvation. If you don't endure to the end, ultimately you are not saved even if you thought you were for all those years. Whereas the Bible teaches God's preservation of the saints, not the perseverance of the saints (ie. for salvation). (Yes, true believers will cling to Christ - but if they struggle, doubt, or backslide, the Lord is still keeping them in His hand and will still bring them home to Heaven when they die - they are still His children. I am not referring to those who reject the Lord and His Word somewhere down the road after professing to be saved for so long. 1 John 2:19 indicates that those "professors" of salvation were never really saved in the first place - ie. they didn't lose their salvation; they never had it).

It sounds like you are basing your definition of Calvinism on one or two people, who may or may not actually be true Calvinists. Again, Calvin's Institutes would be the source to go to to find what is or isn't Calvinism, not what some guy said who claimed to be a Calvinist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No offense, but why would I want to read a book by a heretic, whose doctrines came straight from Augustine? I can deal with modern day Calvinists - but I have no desire to read a book written by someone who literally supposedly just got saved the within two years of writing his "great" Institutes and coming out of the Catholic church. If he truly did get saved, there is no way he would have any solid understanding of the Bible within his first year or so of being saved. God would have opened his understanding the year before and then he would start building a foundation - instead he wrote these huge theological works, mostly founded on Augustine (who is a father of the Catholic church).

And you're doing the same thing you think I am doing - picking a few people to represent the mainstream of Calvinism. Calvinist doctrine is based on the "five points" of Calvinism. I think it is fair to say that those who don't hold to all five points of Calvinism are only Calvinists in name or do not represent mainstream Calvinism. They may have a brand of Calvinism and may call themselves Calvinists. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist, but the longer he preached the Bible the more he realized that limited atonement that Calvin taught was not true. I'm sure there are many that only hold to parts of Calvinism but want to be considered Calvinists (and therefore those who refute ANY of them really never know what they are talking about, according to those they debate with).

Calvinism is heresy/false teaching pure and simple. So is Arminianism (not sure if I spelled that right). The truth lies somewhere in the middle and was not taught by either of them or their systems of theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Danny Carlton said:

Odd that you say it can be defined in many different ways, then proceed to give a definitive definition. I would say that to claim any particular believe is real Calvinism, you'd need to show where in Calvin's Institutes it teaches exactly that. 

It sounds like you are basing your definition of Calvinism on one or two people, who may or may not actually be true Calvinists. Again, Calvin's Institutes would be the source to go to to find what is or isn't Calvinism, not what some guy said who claimed to be a Calvinist.

I did not define Calvinism, the entire TULIP does it for me, Now separating John Calvin and his theology and Calvinism is another topic.

I don’t care to argue semantics - which is what Calvinism does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For the sake of the argument, even if those I read or heard (and the same with every other poster here - those they have heard or read) speak about Calvinism do or do not represent mainstream Calvinism or Calvin himself - that doesn't matter. There are so many different views and they all state you can never truly latch on to their exact brand of Calvinism. What matters is Calvinism is a system of false theology, not founded upon the Word of God in any of its primary points. Instead of debating this or that viewpoint, maybe it would be better to show where they differ from the Bible on each primary point.

Total Depravity - yes, man is depraved, but God gives us a will, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin and need of the Saviour, and we are able to receive or reject the Saviour and His salvation. This is seen in both instances, for example, in the book of Acts. Calvinism teaches man is unable to respond unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them first, then they are born again (however, regenerate means born again! - so they are born again in order to be born again...).

Third point: Limited Atonement - that is clearly not according to the Bible. The NT even states Jesus died for the world (John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19), for all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6), for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), died for every man (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 4:10), died for false teachers (2 Peter 2:1), died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6), etc. - whereas Calvinism teaches Jesus only died for the elect.

All five points of Calvinism can be clearly refuted from the Bible, taking every verse in context, without twisting anything.

And part of Calvinism is the teaching that God elected some for salvation and some for damnation. The Bible does not teach either. It teaches that those who trust Christ for salvation are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, given an inheritance in Christ, given a home in Heaven, given eternal life - not predestined to Heaven or Hell regardless of their personal choice in the matter.

Edited by Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The following is taken from the Way of Life Encyclopedia (just using or for a basic definition):

Total Depravity: Man is totally corrupt and dead in his sin so that he cannot even respond to the gospel unless God sovereignly enables him, which only happens if he is one of the elect. God not only must enable the dead sinner but must sovereignly regenerate him and give him the gift of faith. In the words of the Westminster Confession Total Depravity is defined as follows: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

The Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity does not mean merely that the sinner has no righteousness of his own or that his heart is depraved. It means also that his will is in bondage to sin in such a fashion that he is unable to believe the gospel. Further, it means that he must therefore be born again before he can believe. Arthur Pink states this doctrine as follows: “Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it. This ought not to need arguing. ... Faith is a spiritual grace, the fruit of the spiritual nature, and because the unregenerate are spiritually dead--‘dead in trespasses and sins’--then it follows that faith from them is impossible, for a dead man cannot believe anything” (The Sovereignty of God, p. 73).
 
---------
The Bible itself teaches man can respond to the Gospel - receive it or reject it. Of course, the Holy Spirit is doing His work of convicting and testifying of the Lord Jesus Christ, but never forces anyone to be saved apart from their own will and response to the truth.
 
Acts 7:51-53 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
 
Regeneration comes after a person receives the Gospel, after he trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation - and is not the reason for their salvation. That would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Arthur Pink is someone that teaches you must endure to the end to be saved. Macarthur SEEMS to teach it at various points in his books (I am saying seems because I don't have a perfect memory and it is possible I am misremembering or misunderstanding him - however, if he is not teaching this and that is what I am getting out of his Calvinistic teachings, then he needs to be clearer if that is not what he was intending to say). I have appreciated some of his writings lately (especially in defense of the Scriptures as being all we need for our Christian walks and beliefs); however, when he starts presenting his Calvinism in certain chapters, those I do not appreciate or endorse in any way, shape or form. The statements he makes in those parts of his books clearly contradict the rest of the Bible, and at various places seems to be an attempt at forcing this doctrine where the Bible isn't even speaking about the issues he is speaking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Jerry said:

The following is taken from the Way of Life Encyclopedia (just using or for a basic definition):

Total Depravity: Man is totally corrupt and dead in his sin so that he cannot even respond to the gospel unless God sovereignly enables him, which only happens if he is one of the elect. God not only must enable the dead sinner but must sovereignly regenerate him and give him the gift of faith. In the words of the Westminster Confession Total Depravity is defined as follows: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

The Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity does not mean merely that the sinner has no righteousness of his own or that his heart is depraved. It means also that his will is in bondage to sin in such a fashion that he is unable to believe the gospel. Further, it means that he must therefore be born again before he can believe. Arthur Pink states this doctrine as follows: “Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it. This ought not to need arguing. ... Faith is a spiritual grace, the fruit of the spiritual nature, and because the unregenerate are spiritually dead--‘dead in trespasses and sins’--then it follows that faith from them is impossible, for a dead man cannot believe anything” (The Sovereignty of God, p. 73).
 
---------
The Bible itself teaches man can respond to the Gospel - receive it or reject it. Of course, the Holy Spirit is doing His work of convicting and testifying of the Lord Jesus Christ, but never forces anyone to be saved apart from their own will and response to the truth.
 
Acts 7:51-53 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
 
Regeneration comes after a person receives the Gospel, after he trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation - and is not the reason for their salvation. That would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

I agree but what is missing is that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10:17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, certainly. I wasn't focussed on that - but I agree. Man cannot respond to the Gospel until he has first heard or read the Gospel. Then the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to convict him of his sins and his need for the Saviour, and the person is left with the choice of what to do with Jesus/the Gospel. When someone responds positively and receives the Lord Jesus Christ, trusting Him alone for salvation, then the Holy Spirit regenerates him and he becomes a born again child of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 11/9/2021 at 1:20 PM, Jerry said:

No offense, but why would I want to read a book by a heretic, whose doctrines came straight from Augustine? I can deal with modern day Calvinists - but I have no desire to read a book written by someone who literally supposedly just got saved the within two years of writing his "great" Institutes and coming out of the Catholic church. If he truly did get saved, there is no way he would have any solid understanding of the Bible within his first year or so of being saved. God would have opened his understanding the year before and then he would start building a foundation - instead he wrote these huge theological works, mostly founded on Augustine (who is a father of the Catholic church).

And you're doing the same thing you think I am doing - picking a few people to represent the mainstream of Calvinism. Calvinist doctrine is based on the "five points" of Calvinism. I think it is fair to say that those who don't hold to all five points of Calvinism are only Calvinists in name or do not represent mainstream Calvinism. They may have a brand of Calvinism and may call themselves Calvinists. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist, but the longer he preached the Bible the more he realized that limited atonement that Calvin taught was not true. I'm sure there are many that only hold to parts of Calvinism but want to be considered Calvinists (and therefore those who refute ANY of them really never know what they are talking about, according to those they debate with).

Calvinism is heresy/false teaching pure and simple. So is Arminianism (not sure if I spelled that right). The truth lies somewhere in the middle and was not taught by either of them or their systems of theology.

So you can know for sure that what people say about him is actually true. Wouldn't you want people to read your writings in the event someone started calling you a heretic?

On 11/9/2021 at 1:32 PM, Hugh_Flower said:

I did not define Calvinism, the entire TULIP does it for me, Now separating John Calvin and his theology and Calvinism is another topic.

I don’t care to argue semantics - which is what Calvinism does.

Since it bears his name, it would be logical that true Calvinism would adhere to what John Calvin wrote, not what other people, using him name, claim it means. We certainly don't let just anyone define Christianity.

On 11/9/2021 at 1:38 PM, Jerry said:

For the sake of the argument, even if those I read or heard (and the same with every other poster here - those they have heard or read) speak about Calvinism do or do not represent mainstream Calvinism or Calvin himself - that doesn't matter. There are so many different views and they all state you can never truly latch on to their exact brand of Calvinism. What matters is Calvinism is a system of false theology, not founded upon the Word of God in any of its primary points. Instead of debating this or that viewpoint, maybe it would be better to show where they differ from the Bible on each primary point.

Total Depravity - yes, man is depraved, but God gives us a will, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin and need of the Saviour, and we are able to receive or reject the Saviour and His salvation. This is seen in both instances, for example, in the book of Acts. Calvinism teaches man is unable to respond unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them first, then they are born again (however, regenerate means born again! - so they are born again in order to be born again...).

Third point: Limited Atonement - that is clearly not according to the Bible. The NT even states Jesus died for the world (John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19), for all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6), for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), died for every man (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 4:10), died for false teachers (2 Peter 2:1), died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6), etc. - whereas Calvinism teaches Jesus only died for the elect.

All five points of Calvinism can be clearly refuted from the Bible, taking every verse in context, without twisting anything.

And part of Calvinism is the teaching that God elected some for salvation and some for damnation. The Bible does not teach either. It teaches that those who trust Christ for salvation are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, given an inheritance in Christ, given a home in Heaven, given eternal life - not predestined to Heaven or Hell regardless of their personal choice in the matter.

You can't define it, but it's false. Seems to me you've just defined what you claim can't be defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...