My email correspondence with a Calvinist tunred into podcast

[chrisdate]

Just for clarity, from what I understand Classical Arminianism does hold to total depravity but I do not. Originally I did hold to total depravity, but I don't anymore. I generally don't label myself Arminian, I'm usually labeled one though.

Yeah, many people today have misconceptions about Arminianism, and will wrongly label any non-Calvinist an Arminian. It sounds like when it comes to man's nature, you're either a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. I know you don't want to label yourself, but could you tell me which of those two views more lines up with yours?

You could call me a synergist, but I would protest this label as well, since to meet a condition (faith) for regeneration to occur does not mean I worked with God to regenerate myself. Nor does it mean I played any role in the act of regeneration itself.

I think your view falls in line with the classical meaning of the term. And I don't think it carries any connotative baggage.

So this gets to the heart of the debate. What is the logical order? regeneration=>faith or faith=>regeneration? Reformers say one and I say the other. If faith logically precedes regeneration then TD is a moot point, IMO.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure whether or not Arminians would call prevenient grace "regeneration." But even if they do, I don't think they'd say TD is a "moot point." I think TD really gets to the heart of the nature of man, and while if faith precedes regeneration TD is moot when it comes to salvation, it still has a tremendous impact on anthropology. That's why I want to know whether your view is more akin to Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

I base my position on passages like this:
Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses

I was raised through faith, I was made alive having been forgiven my trespasses. An event that only takes place when faith is present:

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

My sins are covered when I was made alive (regenerated) after formerly being dead in trespasses
My sins are covered when faith is present

So faith has to be present for regeneration to occur.

From what I have read, the Reformed position has regeneration separate from justification. So logically speaking, we are born again & still dead in sin. Interesting.

I'd be happy to discuss those passages with you over email, as I explained, but I don't have the discipline right now to discuss them in a public forum like this one. What I've been interested in this thread is whether or not TD has ever been predominantly the view that men will tend toward atheism. I know that since you're neither Arminian nor Calvinist, you don't believe in TD, but I'd still like to reach a point where we agree that TD is not what you thought it was.

[Sean]

Yeah, many people today have misconceptions about Arminianism, and will wrongly label any non-Calvinist an Arminian. It sounds like when it comes to man's nature, you're either a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. I know you don't want to label yourself, but could you tell me which of those two views more lines up with yours?

I'm not sure whether or not Arminians would call prevenient grace "regeneration." But even if they do, I don't think they'd say TD is a "moot point." I think TD really gets to the heart of the nature of man, and while if faith precedes regeneration TD is moot when it comes to salvation, it still has a tremendous impact on anthropology. That's why I want to know whether your view is more akin to Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

Well that would depend on who's definitions we are using. If we use Wikipedia, I'm neither. God makes the first move(s). God has commanded the gospel to go forth, and the Holy Spirit convicts us. Only then can we make any type of response toward God in terms of salvation. I do believe man is sinful and cannot overcome this without the Spirit working within him. I do not, however, believe man is unable to make a decision to trust God once the Spirit has convicted him and the gospel has been presented to him.

What I've been interested in this thread is whether or not TD has ever been predominantly the view that men will tend toward atheism.

I've already given my comments about this. If you feel you have defeated my points about this, then does this mean TD has won by default?

[darinhouston]

I'd be happy to discuss those passages with you over email, as I explained, but I don't have the discipline right now to discuss them in a public forum like this one.

You say this frequently. I'm curious what you mean by it.

Also, as to TD and prevenient grace, I think you're missing a key distinction between the classical Arminian and Calvinistic positions -- though they sound the same in the snippets you presented, there is one key difference that isn't expressed. The Arminian (I think) can fully embrace TD, but prevenient grace makes it a practical irrelevance in some respects. The Arminian can say honestly that nothing that is good is done from man's flesh, and that all good things of ANY nature whatsoever in any way only come from God. The difference is in the notion that we are all made from the image of God, and there is that residual part of God's spirit in and within and throughout us (whether called prevenient grace or something else) that enables some good to be done even by the unregenerate (including seeking after God and acknowledging and choosing to follow the Lordship of Christ). Still, that good isn't from the man, but from God. The Calvinist seems to deny there is any grace or presence of God in our lives prior to regeneration. I believe that's how both camps can acknowledge the theoretical notion of Total Depravity while having completely different views of how it works out in people's lives.

[chrisdate]

Well that would depend on who's definitions we are using. If we use Wikipedia, I'm neither.

It's not that we're using Wikipedia, but what it describes are the historic definitions of these various terms.

God makes the first move(s). God has commanded the gospel to go forth, and the Holy Spirit convicts us. Only then can we make any type of response toward God in terms of salvation. I do believe man is sinful and cannot overcome this without the Spirit working within him. I do not, however, believe man is unable to make a decision to trust God once the Spirit has convicted him and the gospel has been presented to him.

This means you're an Arminian and affirm Total Depravity. I'm glad

I've already given my comments about this. If you feel you have defeated my points about this, then does this mean TD has won by default?

No, but since as an Arminian and a Calvinist we both agree with Total Depravity, I'm not sure why you've argued against it.

[chrisdate]

You say this frequently. I'm curious what you mean by it.

I just mean that I can't control myself well enough yet when debating on forums like these. I end up taking time away from higher priorities: work, family, etc. So I have to be very careful about which discussions I enter into and which ones I do not. Already I've failed at that a little here.

Also, as to TD and prevenient grace, I think you're missing a key distinction between the classical Arminian and Calvinistic positions -- though they sound the same in the snippets you presented, there is one key difference that isn't expressed. The Arminian (I think) can fully embrace TD, but prevenient grace makes it a practical irrelevance in some respects.

No I'm not missing that, I have for a long time fully recognized that.

To be clear, though, it's not that the Arminian "can fully embrace TD," it's that he does. That's what Arminianism is. It's fine if you don't, it just makes you not an Arminian and something else.

The Calvinist seems to deny there is any grace or presence of God in our lives prior to regeneration. I believe that's how both camps can acknowledge the theoretical notion of Total Depravity while having completely different views of how it works out in people's lives.

Your statement about Calvinism is incorrect, but that's OK. You're right that both camps affirm (not "can," but "do") TD while having completely different views of how it works out in peoples' lives.

[darinhouston]

Your statement about Calvinism is incorrect, but that's OK. You're right that both camps affirm (not "can," but "do") TD while having completely different views of how it works out in peoples' lives.

I can't let you get away with that -- I do embrace the Arminian flavor of TD -- but, no matter how you slice it, these are two completely different beliefs about man's depravity and incapability regardless of how they can share a name and be expressed in a broad way to seemingly agree. LDS can express their beliefs using terminology in ways that seem quite consistent with Christianity. That doesn't mean the doctrines are in any way the same.

In the context of the historic debate, it is disengenuous to say both groups mean the same thing when they agree that man is totally depraved. A hypothetical man without God's grace (including the Spirit's influence) is totally depraved and would be completely incapable of anything "good" without such grace/influence. But, the simple matter is that we disagree on whether ACTUAL men in their ACTUAL conditions would have sufficient grace/influence to seek/receive Christ's lordship prior to God specially intervening to regenerate that man in order to specially enable him. It is that very question that is at the heart of the TD debate.

I could craft a sentence that a catholic could agree with as to justification and grace, but just because we could agree on a doctrinal statement doesn't mean we share the same doctrine.

[darinhouston]

Your statement about Calvinism is incorrect, but that's OK. You're right that both camps affirm (not "can," but "do") TD while having completely different views of how it works out in peoples' lives.

No, that's not ok (with me) -- the purpose of debate is to refine and understand -- if I've hit on error, I'm happy to discuss it (as long as it doesn't detract from the broader point). This is an area I've tried to understand about the Calvinist position.

In what way does pre-regenerate man have the influence of the Holy Spirit and to what end? In what way does he enjoy God's grace? Do you only suggest that the unregenerate receives some of the "crumbs" of the benefits of God's grace distributed to those around him (like rainfall on a neighbor's yard?) If you refer to God's wooing, why even woo someone who has a heart turned bitterly against God and who would gnash his teeth at the truth prior to regeneration? Does this grace only extend to those elect who are not yet regenerate? Or to all men?

[Sean]

I've already given my comments about this. If you feel you have defeated my points about this, then does this mean TD has won by default?

No, but since as an Arminian and a Calvinist we both agree with Total Depravity, I'm not sure why you've argued against it.

Well, my personal understanding of scripture is a little different than the classic Arminian view.

On another note, I think that no matter what people are disagreeing about, they need to both consider that what is being debated is each others understanding of the scripture and not necessarily the scripture itself. Sometimes we can think our personal understanding of scripture is on the same level as scripture and defend it as such. Once we realize this is not the case, fruitful discussion can occur. Since we only "know in part", there is always room to learn. I've always tried to challenge myself as to why I hold the views I do, so I don't become set in my ways. I may not always be successful, but I am trying.