A Biblical Debate : Total Depravity (CALVINISM)

Hi jo02168j, My arguments will follow the below format: Argument #1 | Understanding the Logic of TULIP Argument #2 | Key Texts Defending Total Depravity Argument #3 | Key Texts Supporting Partial Depravity Argument #1 | Understanding the Logic of TULIP For those not familiar with the Calvinist versus Arminian debate, the TULIP is the acronym used to describe the response to the Arminian remonstrance from Calvin’s followers. They stand for the below concepts. Total Depravity (as defined in the OP) Unconditional Election, that god sovereignly selected certain individuals by grace according to the good council of his will to salvation, which was done not according to anything in them. Limited Atonement, Jesus sacrifice on the cross achieved total salvation for all the elect individuals, not just potential salvation for all mankind. Irresistible Grace, god’s regenerative work in salvation will overcome any opposition in the will of the elect by giving them a new heart which is done by the work of the Holy Spirit. Perseverance of the Saints, those who were elected to salvation, regenerated by the spirit will be sustained in their faith by god’s power, he will lose none of his sheep in other words. (Note: These are my definitions which are not binding on this debate necessarily) Total Depravity therefore isn’t an independent concept but is inextricably linked to be the foundational concept for all of Calvinism. That because mankind is totally depraved and cannot choose god, it is necessary for salvation to be a complete work of god in which mankind is only the agent acted upon in such salvific operations. The other concepts to a degree then logically flow from this, that if god’s saving work is totally his prerogative then it is reasonable to conclude that only those saved are those whom god has chosen from all time unto salvation. Primarily, the difference between partial and total depravity is the issue of volition. Is the individual a volitional agent in the conversion experience, or are they passively being acted upon. This hinges on the assertion that regeneration (the rebirth caused by the Holy Spirit) precedes faith, which is the mechanism Calvinists use to substantiate their conclusion that salvation is totally a work of god. Therefore, the texts I will select will deal not particularly with the texts that declare man’s depravity (such is already agreed upon in the acceptance of this debate), but rather on the issue of man’s agency in choosing god in any way. Argument #2 | Key Texts Defending Total Depravity “who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”[1] This text is used by Calvinists to argue that the “will of man” is not involved with the act of being “born of god.” With this logic, Calvinists assert that any volitional activity on the part of man that causes him to be born again directly contradicts this text. Arguments such as this I will argue, contradict the direct historical and textual context. We will examine the textual context first. “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,” The author is providing an introduction to his gospel, which outlines from the onset a key issue which was quite revolutionary in Jewish thought. Beginning with the phrase, “he came to his own, and his own people did not receive him,” gives us the initial reference which the author is referring to. Jews were Jesus’ people who he came to, and of course they rejected him and his teachings. However, those who did receive him (which we of course now know is primarily Gentiles), those were the individuals that he gave the right to become children of god, as the text clearly says. Indeed, this text is not about people being unable to choose to become children of god, but rather it is a reorientation of what is the basis for being included by such a distinction. Jews, deemed themselves as members of god’s Covenant through the seed of Abraham, or perhaps became Jews later on through circumcision and obedience to the other Mosaic Laws. Contrary to that position, the author of John who is writing after the rejection of Christianity by most Jews was in agreement with Paul concerning who truly were the children of god. Which he asserts it is on the basis of belief, and not in any outward obedience to the law, or any kind of physical intercourse producing a child into the lineage of Abraham. In essence, their Jewishness was invalid as it pertains to them being members of god’s covenant people, and most directly them being children of god. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”[3[ Perhaps the most often quoted text in discussing the matter that man cannot choose god is the text of John 6:44. In it, they argue that this text provides proof that mankind cannot come to Jesus unless god first “draws” them. However, from the translation itself it doesn’t seem to imply such, but their argument really lifts off on the meaning of the Greek word “helkyse” which they contend truly means “drag.” The textual basis for this translation of the word is found in James 2:6, and Acts 16:19 where each of these texts indicates being physically dragged. However, this argument fails simply because the meaning of the Greek word has a semantic range, which does certainly afford the word translated by nearly every Greek scholar as “draw” in the context as it does not involve any kind of physical act. This distinction does not then support the narrow translation and interpretation of the text to indicate anything more than a drawing that happens, indeed to all men.[4] Argument #3 | Key Texts Supporting Partial Depravity “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”[5] In this text we have Lydia who is described as a worshiper of god, which is a common theme throughout Acts as genuine worshippers of god are coming to faith.[6][7][8] The text then doesn’t describe a regeneration experience, but something more in line with the Arminian understanding which is not 100% effectual. The Arminian understanding isn’t necessarily about a universal prevenient grace, but simply that through the proclamation of the gospel message, the Holy Spirit acts upon all individuals listening to make them attentive to the message of the gospel. Effectually overcoming that sinful nature that would otherwise prohibit such attentiveness, though not overcoming the will in such a way that faith is certain. “And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,”[9] The important portion of this text is the final sentence where it talks about a preacher named Apollos “greatly aided” individuals who of course by “grace had believed.” The implications of this text is that it is possible for a preacher to aid through preaching, indeed greatly aid, while also recognizing that god is operative in the distribution of grace. The breakdown of this text is seen below. Apollos: Greatly aided people coming to faith Individuals: believed by grace and were aided by Apollos God: Sent the preacher and provided the grace for individuals to believe. This model does not fit the Calvinist version where the act of conversion is a result of regeneration preceding faith, such that the work is entirely independent of any human cooperation. Kind Regards, TS [1] John 1:13 (ESV) [2] John 1:11-12 (ESV) [3] John 6:44 (ESV) [4] John 12:32 (EV) [5] Acts 16:14 (ESV) [6] Acts 13:43 (ESV) [7] Acts 18:7 (ESV) [8] Acts 17:4 (ESV) [9] Acts 18:27 (ESV)