This if the first of several posts that I intend to write regarding the five points of Calvinism (
TULIP). This is within a larger series that I am working on explaining why I am not yet a Calvinist and hopefully doing something to encourage those who are of a similar mind but might feel intimidated by the tact of their reformed acquaintances. A greater explanation of my motivations can be read in the introduction
here. I am not going to attempt to prove a definite alternative view to
Total Depravity. Calvinism
is a positive assertion, and as such the burden of proof is on the Calvinists.
I am only explaining why I have yet to be convinced by their arguments.
Total Depravity puts the "
T" in
TULIP. It is, by broad opinion, the
foundational point of the five. Calvinism is an internally consistent system
and if you agree with the first of the five points, as it is distinctly
articulated in Calvinist theology, you arguably have to then hold to the other four
points (and also conclusions beyond those) if you are to be logically
consistent. You probably didn't gasp at that last sentence, but that is
potentially a very controversial statement itself since many a sincere and
devoted Calvinist claims to hold to only four (or less) of the five points.
Usually the one that drops out is
Limited
Atonement, but I'll address that in due time.
Now I mean no offense by alluding to a logical inconsistency on the part of
"4-point" Calvinists; perhaps my perception of their insufficiency is
our first evidence of human depravity, whether it is on their part or on mine.
My previous comment about the logical necessity of taking all 5 points together
would be in total agreement with someone like 7-pointer
John
Piper. However, that's pretty much the only place him and I might agree as
far as Calvinism is concerned--not that he would lose any sleep over the fact.
So Calvinism is internally consistent and
TD
is the first premise in the line of reasoning. Notice I did not say, though,
that Calvinism is consistent with scripture or that it is philosophically
necessary. I only mean to point out that, within itself and as general
theology, Calvinism is not self-contradicting and one point necessarily flows
from the other.
Now it is common to come across broad definitions of
TD with which it is hard for anyone to disagree. Definitions
like, "Sin affects every part of us" or, "Nobody is capable of
saving themselves" are surface-level concepts that anyone with moderately
conservative theology is going to get behind. This is why it is important to
note what parts of Calvinist doctrine are truly distinctive--the points of each
idea that are held
only by Calvinists. This is something I have found
many people to be confused about. They might think, in this instance, that to
deny the Calvinist articulation of
TD is to say that we can in fact save
ourselves or that we aren't all hopelessly sinful from the start. While it is
true that to believe the latter would be to reject
TD, many Christians who
reject
TD do not also reject those other things. This is a problem of not being
able to distinguish where one's own theological positions end and where
commonality with others begins. It is a problem of being ignorant to any
understanding other than your own. It is not by any means a problem unique to
Calvinists, but wherever it is found it is a wholly uncharitable and
counterproductive deficiency. I sincerely hope that it is not presently to be
found in this very argument.
The main part of the Calvinist expression of
TD
that is particularly distinct is the idea that a person is incapable of
choosing or even desiring anything to do with God unless God first
"enables" them to do so. The term "enable" here comes with
the caveat that, once such an occasion happens, a person cannot choose
other than to seek for God--but that is getting ahead of myself. In regard to
TD this is the main point where I am unconvinced.
The passage that I have heard most appealed to in defense of
TD is Rom 3.10-18. Most other passages used to
defend
TD are supplementary to this. That
is, they do not themselves explicitly outline the doctrine of
TD, but can be seen as supporting it once such a
doctrine is established. It is from this passage that many get the idea that no
person since the fall has been capable of even desiring to make a move toward
God. Therefore, the passage in question is the crux of the teaching.
Ascertaining the meaning of this passage should go a long way to upholding or
deflating
TD.
Now to understand what Paul is getting at in Romans 3, we need to first try
and understand something about the passages Paul quotes in verses 10
through 18. There are some common themes in almost all of these.
First, each one contrasts the wicked with the righteous--the unjust with the
just. Second, they are mostly occasional—within a context of a specific people
and time. This is expressly clear with the Isaiah and Jeremiah passages. The
psalms that are referenced are also quite likely in the context of David's early
plight with Saul or his later one with Absalom, and the first (Psalm 14 and 53; ESV)
is perhaps as specific as the incident with Nabal (1 Sam 25).
This means that the verses referenced did not originally intend to convey
anything about the absolute condition of all mankind for all time since they
contrasted the then present wicked with the then present righteous within the context
of history. That is not to say that all people are not in some sense wicked,
since we are mortally affected by Adam’s transgression and all men sin (Rom.
5.12; 1 John 1.8), but only that a slightly different sort of subject is in few with
these passages. However, for the current subject, this only really matters with
one part of one of the references: “no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3.11). This is
the crux of the crux. If this means that everyone for all time is incapable of
seeking or desiring God in any sense, then the Calvinist version of
TD holds up. However, as discussed in the previous
paragraph, that conclusion is not supported by the context.
The “no one seeks for God” bit is quoted from Psalm 14 (and Psalm 53, they
are basically identical passages). As I mentioned already, this psalm might be
as specific as to refer to David’s interaction with Nabal (Nabal literally
means “fool” and “the fool” is identified as the subject in the first verse of
the psalm). When you read this passage, it is quickly apparent that David could
not be making a statement about all people at all times. Verses 2 and 3, from
which Paul quotes in Romans 3, must be understood hyperbolically because the
rest of the psalm does not allow for an absolute, systematic rendering. Verse 4
presents a clear juxtaposition between the “evil doers” who “do not call upon
the Lord” and “my people”. Verse 5 then introduces the “generation of the
righteous” which is likely meant to be connected to the “my people” of the
previous verse. This makes it almost impossible to read the “children of man”
who don’t “seek after God” as referring to all men everywhere for all time
since even within the scope of this passage there is a “generation of the
righteous” who are being exploited by those “evildoers”.
So then is Paul using something that is not making a point about
TD to yet make a point about
TD? No, he’s actually in the middle of an entirely
different conversation. The verse introducing the section in question asks, “
What then? Are we Jews any better off [than Greeks]?” He answers his
own question with, “No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both
Jews and Greeks, are under sin,” followed by the section in question (Rom. 3.9).
The explicit subject, then, is the status of the Jews and Greeks as two groups
in respect to one another and God. This is exactly in line with the direction
of Paul’s argument through the first 11 chapters of the epistle. What we should
have thought as suspicious was the idea that Paul was here digressing from his
own argument to make a random statement about systematic theology.
So we see that Paul’s message was also occasional. He was
appealing to these OT passages in support of his position that there is now no
distinction between Jew and gentile. Something about the passages quoted are
suppose to prove that point. From reading the original quotes we know that what
was being said was not that everybody is evil, therefore both Jew and gentile
are evil. Rather the actual passage compared the righteous with the evil, showing that the two existed in juxtaposition.
I believe that Paul was appealing to those passages specifically to show the
Jews that they themselves had a very muddled past. David was chased down with
murderous intentions by his sons and brothers and Israel was destroyed for
their spiritual whoredom. Paul was saying, “this is your past…it’s twisted and
polluted…so don’t think your heritage in God’s memory is any better than that
of the Greeks.” This makes sense of not just this particular section of Romans 3, but also of the overall message of Romans and the original passages there quoted. The Jew’s already knew that the Greeks
came from damaged stock, what they needed was to also be put in their proper
place as a people—equal with their Greek brothers.
So we see that Paul wasn’t addressing TD and neither are the passages he referenced. “No
one seeks for God” isn’t a statement about everyone for all time, but a
rhetorical expression regarding particular people David had to deal with. This
is similar to when we say something dramatic like “nobody notices me” or “they
are all losers”. It is therefore a logical leap to conclude from this passage
that it is impossible for someone to desire God because of depravity. That
doesn’t mean it is not true, but does mean that it remains to be proven. I am not yet convinced.
There are many other passages that are used in support of
the idea of our inability to want God. Notable in my mind is Ephesians 2: “And
you were dead in the trespasses and sins...” This is often quoted to argue that
obviously dead people can’t choose things, so we who are depraved cannot choose
God. I don’t think the problem here is difficult to perceive for anyone who
wants to be honest about the matter. The fact is, we don’t really know much at
all about what it means to be “dead” in whatever sense Paul here intends, other
than that it is a bad thing that desperately needs correcting (and has been
corrected, praise God!). Yes it is true, physically dead people do not make
choices. They also don’t fart, but the spiritually dead still seam capable
enough of that. It is a completely arbitrary parameter to just claim out of thin
air that we are limited in exactly that sort of way. However, if it were
already proven elsewhere that we are incapable of desiring God then it would be
much less of an issue to see a connection here. Yet, it remains to be proven.
I could spend all night addressing all of the passages that are brought up in
defense of TD, but that is unnecessary. As I
said in the beginning, I do not have to prove the doctrine false, the burden of
prove is upon those who assert it. If it is going to be proven, there is a
near endless list of challenges that must be addressed. When trying to prove a
doctrine, you cannot merely list those verses that seem to be for it over and against
those that seem to be against it and hope that the scales are in your favor at
the end of it all. If we are to respect the idea of the Bible as a total,
self-consistent, non-contradictory expression then we must find an
understanding that satisfies all relevant scripture. The doctrine of TD seriously fails at this point. In my
experience, Calvinist expositors tend to lean very heavily upon their
proof-texts while mostly ignoring or blithely dismissing the legion of areas
that seriously challenge their conclusions. To be fair, this is another
shortcoming that is certainly not unique to Calvinists and one of which I have
also been guilty.
One of the passages that seems to be irreconcilable with the conclusions of
the Calvinist version of TD is found very nearly at the
plum beginning of it all. Four chapters in we find God interacting with Cain.
In regard to Cain’s anger over God’s rejection of his sacrifice, God tells Cain
explicitly that, “’If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if
you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you,
but you must rule over it.’” Now this must all be very queer from the Calvinist
perspective. According to their doctrine, Cain absolutely could not have done
“well” without God allowing (making) him do well—so it wasn’t actually an
option. Supposedly it was literally impossible for spiritually dead Cain to
obey what God was saying--or even want to obey. But yet here is God presenting him a choice between
doing well or not. Here is God imploring him to “rule over [sin]”. If that was
a flat impossibility, then God was apparently being less than forthright in communicating
that Cain had two options before him (some people call that lying). I don’t see
how Calvinist doctrine survives sections like this. I’ve looked, but I have yet
to find it successfully harmonized.
How about passages like this:
-
“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve,
whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the
gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we
will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24.15
- “And those who had set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of
Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD, the God of their fathers.” 2
Chron. 11.16
- “Nevertheless, some good is found in you, for you destroyed the Asheroth out
of the land, and have set your heart to seek
God.” 2 Chron. 19.3
- “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely.” Prov. 28.5
- “If you will seek God and plead with the Almighty for mercy, if you are
pure and upright, surely then he will rouse himself for you” Job 8.5-6
- “Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with
you, as you have said. Hate
evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the Lord, the God of
hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.” Amos 5.14-15
- “’Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence
that is in his hands. Who knows? God may turn and
relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.’ When God saw
what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the
disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.” Jonah
3.8-10
As far as I can see, these are all situations that are not possible or
commandments that simply cannot be followed according to the Calvinist
understanding of TD. Nineveh could not have
chosen repentance. Jehoshaphat could not have had “some good” in him and he
could not have “set [his own] heart to seek God.” These are just some examples. Calvinist doctrine when
thoroughly applied does not harmonize with the majority of scripture.
This is why I am not a Calvinist. I do not see, and I’ve not found anyone to
show me, how the Calvinist version of TD is
evident in scripture, and how such a perspective can actually be harmonized
throughout. The philosophical challenges aside, if the scriptural argument were
thoroughly sound then I would be compelled to admit it. I will admit, however, that when read by a mind already acquainted with certain assumptions, several passages seem, on the surface and in absence of having to reconcile with scripture in total, to be an open and shut
matter. However, it is clearly not that simple. Whatever conclusions we come to
on the subject absolutely must make sense out of the entirety of the scriptural
witness, not just a collection of verses selected in isolation from across the
breadth of the bible. If that can be done, then I will gladly accept TD and be
on my way to becoming a good adherent to reformed soteriology.
