I am reading an introduction to the tenants of Calvinism.
I like the way the book approaches the issue. It is a text book that I found but starts by wanting to establish the fundamental principle of Calvinism. The idea of Pre-destination and the depraved nature of man are the most controversial Calvinist ideas but it makes sense that they are not the key, fundamental be-all end-all of any system of thought.
The author establishes that "the sovereignty of God" as the central theme of Calvinism in the same way that the catholicity of the church is the central theme of the Roman Catholic church or salvation through grace is central to Lutheranism. But that is not what I'm writing about.
What I disagree about is the statement "the Bible maintains that man is totally depraved." It is not that I am a huge defender of the mankind and am dead set against the idea that we are depraved... it is that through my reading of the Bible I could not say that it says that man is "totally depraved."
Perhaps the statement is poorly made by Calvinist or maybe it means something other than the common use of the word. The common use of the word, in my best understanding, is that to be "totally depraved" is to be completely without any boundaries or conscience at all, to be a maniac and fully without any virtue at all, worthy of nothing except destruction.
Where Calvinism and I agree is that the Bible presents a picture in which each man is on a path that either leads to perfection with God, through Jesus Christ or else is on a path that leads to total depravity. Everyone is sort of good and sort of bad but if extended towards eternity we are progressing/digressing towards one state of the other. If that is what Calvinism states then we agree... but they state it poorly... they state it incorrectly.
But if my understanding of what it means to be "totally depraved" is correct then the Bible does not present or teach that people are currently depraved. It also does not present or teach that only Christians or Jews are the only kind of people who have virtue. For example Jesus makes a point about some virtue that his contemporaries posessed and he said "Even pagans do this." This would suggest that not all pagans are eating their children.
How I would state the issue in a way I believe best describes what the Bible says over all is that without divine intervention all men are on a path that will lead to complete depravity and that our best efforts are insufficient to solve this. If I interpret the Calvinist tenant that way I have yet to encounter any problem with their theology (so far... I'm like on chapter 2)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
my understanding of "total depravity" is that humans are unable to save themselves by their own power. that way that i've learned it is that it refers to the permanent break between humans and God due to sin. using the path analogy from the book, total depravity refers to the fact that those 2 paths will never cross no matter what a person does, apart from God.
it would be interesting to hear more of what you have to say about the rest of the book. the more i study calvin vs. arminius, the more i agree with the theology/biblical interpretation of the latter. shhh...don't tell my in-laws. :-)
If that is what they mean by "total depravity" then I agree with what they are saying but am critical of their word choice. Perhaps "hopelessly lost" would more accurately describe such a view.
I have never heard of arminius except in the specific and limited use of "calvin vs arminius" and the only definition of arminius I have heard is the view other than Calvin's. That is not very helpful.
But my initial impression of Calvinism is to agree with its foundational principle (tha soveriengty of God) and to wonder if their is any other position for a Christian.
Arminius actually agreed with Calvin on most points. I wouldn't say he disagreed with Calvin's ideas about God's sovereignty, but more about free will. For instance, he believes that people can respond to the Gospel, reject it, or even walk away from it. Calvin believed that the elect are overtaken by God, almost as if it has nothing to do with them and is 100% God's action. Arminius also believed that Jesus died for everyone, (refuting Calvin's idea of limited atonement) and that the elect were those who responded in faith. Essentially, Arminius rejects the lack of free will in Calvin's soteriology, but does not believe that people can save themselves either.
I agree with the Calvinist book which says that predestination is not a foundational principle of Calvinism but a logical consequence of the soveriegnty of God.
I don't know see it as an important issue. I wouldn't leave a church for having either view.
As for limited atonement... I don't know... never thought about it... maybe some people were created to be saved and some people were created to be "sons of perdition" but if that is the case only God knows who is who.
I have a great book called "Arminian Theology" by Roger Olsen. You should read it, Mikey. It does a wonderful job of charitably discussing both views, where they differ, and where they are similar. It would probably be a very good follow-up to your reading through this Calvinism book.
Post a Comment