My email correspondence with a Calvinist tunred into podcast

[chrisdate]

I'm not that familiar with Dort but Calvin himself sure seems to go further than you seem to

This is only true if you assume that to seek after an imitation of God is good. I don't know about you, but I believe the Bible is clear that to seek after a false god is evil. If this is so, then Total Depravity predicts not that man will tend toward atheism, but that man will tend toward false faiths, since such false faiths are expressions of evil. There simply is nothing in the quote you provided from Calvin, nor in Sean's quotes of other Reformed theologians, that suggests Calvinists have ever believed man will tend toward atheism.

Not knowing whether or not most of you profess Arminianism, or Semi/Pellagianism, I will point out for the time being (and will provide additional quotes tomorrow) that even historic Arminians affirm Total Depravity. The Five Articles of Remonstrance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_artic ... monstrance), for example, drafted by Arminius' followers, denied 4 of what we today call the 5 points, but they affirmed Total Depravity, writing,

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

You see, both the original Arminians (articles of remonstrance) and the Reformed theologians they criticized (Synod of Dort) affirmed the Total Depravity of unregenerate man, saying not that man can do no acts of seeming goodness at all, neither that he can express no sort of faith in God at all, but that he can do nothing which is "truly good," and cannot come to "saving knowledge of God."

I'll find more quotes as I find them, but I have yet to see any evidence that any prominent Reformed theologians, Calvin or otherwise, who taught that man will tend toward atheism. The only way such theologians' quotes can be cited as such evidence is if one assumes that faith in false gods, or false faith in the true God, is "truly good," and I would wholeheartedly reject such an assumption. No, whether true or not (though, as I've demonstrated, historically Arminians, too, have affirmed it), the doctrine of Total Depravity predicts not that man will tend toward atheism, but will tend toward false religion, which we certainly see throughout the history of man.

as I understand your view, you believe that man can seek after God, yet non-elect are merely incapable of responding to the precise doctrines about God. I think that's so far from most historic Calvinists I've read that it just seems to be a qualification and convenience to hold onto something one just can't quite give up.

No, that's not my view, nor that of Reformed theologians throughout the centuries. It's not about "precise doctrines;" it's about true, saving faith. A genuine repentance from one's sins and trust in the proptiatory work of Christ saves; any other faith is not merely insufficient, it is evil. Such false faiths either insist man earns salvation through works, or that all men are saved apart from faith, or that salvation is available through others besides Christ, and so forth, all of which are not merely deficient, but are expressions of evil. With all due respect, and yet sincerity, I'm amazed even a critic of Calvinism would question this (not the doctrine, but the evil nature of false faith).

I have also heard White and others many times go on and on about how the very idea of God is repugnant to the non-elect, and they want nothing of God, and would sit in Hell and spit at God even if they saw him face to face while they burned.

Absolutely they will, as will Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists and, yes, atheists, because while they love whatever false gods in which they've placed their trust, they hate the true and living God.

[chrisdate]

Chris,

I'd also like to add my welcome to you brother. Also looking forward to becoming more familier with your work/ministry. Thanks for posting.

l2j

Thanks!!!

[Sean]

I sent this email to Darin and to Sean before my account here was activated...

I understand that for many of you, either my apologies come across as insincere, or I am not apologizing for what you think I may have done wrong. Or, perhaps, you think I only apologized because I was called out publicly. Unfortunately I can't help that, but I'll have that discussion with Sean and Darin offline.

Hello Chris,
I didn't get an email from you about this so I'm glad you posted it here. I certainly accept your apology for podcasting our email exchange without asking. It didn't seem to make sense to podcast an email exchange with me when I ended the discussion prematurely.

In the future, however, please come to me first if you believe I’ve done something inappropriate, following the Matthew 18:15 model.

As Mark 11:25 states, I should forgive anyone if I hold something against them. In this case you can't undo it. So while I did consider emailing you, I honestly wasn't that worked up about it. Surprised, yes. But I don't think you did it with malice toward me. Since the information was made public, I posted here and gave a disclaimer, that I didn't give permission. The fact that you found your way here and publicly apologized means a lot.


As for the apology for the way you spoke in your emails, well, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. In my email to you I did say I was looking for a different kind of dialogue, that I didn't need the aggravation, that I didn't think our discussion was fruitful, we seemed to be talking past each other and that "it's probably me", meaning my fault.

I used to work a different shift that gave me much more free time and some of that time was spent debating. Now I have much less time than I did before but have more time (on my new shift) to spend with my family. So part of the aggravation was lack of time to spend typing responses combined with the realization that I could just put the family on hold for a few hours while I thought through (I'm a slow thinker) and typed out my responses. The other aggravation was the hope that things would go better in the way we communicated with each other. Certainly not your fault, since it was my expectation that was not met. And finally your defensive spirit, while nothing new or even necessarily wrong when debating an issue like this, just spoke to me that we probably weren't going to get anywhere. So, as I said in my email, "I've actually labored greatly over this simple decision, as I would love to continue. But not like this. I simply don't have peace in my heart about it." I was driving to work when all the sudden the thought entered my mind that maybe I should just stop our email debate. Suddenly I felt at peace. I didn't want to stop but I did what seemed like the best choice. Maybe it was God telling me "Calvinism is right, you can't win".

In the meantime, thanks, Sean, for posting links to my podcast, in particular episode 43. Just to be clear, I didn't talk about "dispensational preterism" in that episode, I just said that as a preterist (orthodox) I'm an enigma because I hold to a more dispensational view of Israel. And certainly in other episodes I do discuss preterism, but I don't believe I've yet discussed "on the air" (so to speak) how my dispensational view of Israel meets my preteristic view of the so-called "end times." Still, I appreciate that you think it was an episode worth listening to.

God bless,
Chris

I knew you would take issue with the phrase: "dispensational preterism". LOL
But I honestly didn't know what else to label that view so people here could have some grasp of what it was. I could have used the term Israelology, but without hearing the podcast first that term wouldn't be very helpful.

Oh, one more thing: while I haven't the discipline to debate Calvinism here on this forum right now, I would be interested in any evidence that the historic doctrine of Total Depravity has ever predominantly been something which asserts that unregenerate man will tend toward atheism specifically, and not additionally (or perhaps primarily) toward false faiths. Understand, I'm not asking for an argument against Total Depravity; for that, contact me via email. Rather, I'm interested in historical declarations from Reformed theologians which support Sean's understanding of the doctrine.

I never stated that anyone from a Reformed perspective would hold that position. So it would make more sense to me if TD were true, that people would tend toward no belief in God at all. But we do see people of all sorts believe in God. Personally this makes TD hard to take seriously. Just as we don't think that faith being prior to regeneration makes salvation meritorious and something we can boast about. Yet you seem do disagree. There are things about each others position that we just don't agree on.

Also, you might find this position on Romans 1 interesting:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 79da835618

[chrisdate]

I didn't get an email from you about this so I'm glad you posted it here.

Uh oh, I hope I didn't send it to the wrong Sean

I certainly accept your apology for podcasting our email exchange without asking.

Thank you, Sean.

As for the apology for the way you spoke in your emails, well, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. In my email to you I did say I was looking for a different kind of dialogue, that I didn't need the aggravation, that I didn't think our discussion was fruitful, we seemed to be talking past each other and that "it's probably me", meaning my fault.

Well I appreciate that you don't feel I have something to apologize for, but I apologize nonetheless. What may or may not surprise you is that I prefer something different, too. Like I said, there are reasons I reacted with the kind of attitude I did; as often as non-Calvinists (rightly) complain about the attitude of Calvinists, Calvinists just as often feel similarly about non-Calvinists. I am so accustomed to discussions with non-Calvinists in which the behavior of the person with whom I'm speaking is as obstreperous as Calvinists are accused of being. I anticipated this kind of treatment, and mistook some of what you wrote as that kind of treatment.

So yes, I do apologize, for assuming from the outset that you were going to be like those with whom I've spoken in the past. As they say, when you ASSume...

I knew you would take issue with the phrase: "dispensational preterism". LOL

Not exactly. Actually, I jokingly call myself that. And I think it's fair to say that my views of Israel are pretty dispensational, and my views on eschatology are pretty preteristic. I just wanted to let the readers of this thread know that that episode was simply on a dispensational view of Israel, not a defense of preterism or a linking together of preterism and dispensationalism. Future episodes for that

I never stated that anyone from a Reformed perspective would hold that position. So it would make more sense to me if TD were true, that people would tend toward no belief in God at all. But we do see people of all sorts believe in God. Personally this makes TD hard to take seriously.

I understand, Sean, really I do. But what I've been trying to explain is why, whether true or not, TD does make sense despite this seeming problem. You see, these your words really illustrate what I think the problem is with your objection: "all sorts believe in God." I'm sorry, brother, but this is not true.

All sorts of people believe in all sorts of false gods, sure. But would you agree with me that a belief in, worship of and loyalty to a false god, is evil? Would you further agree that such a false faith is evil no matter how sincerely adhered to? I hope you'd agree with both statements, and if you do, you should be able to understand why, if true (which I'm not asking you to affirm), TD would predict the very kinds of false faiths based upon which you object to TD. After all, if unregenerate man is totally depraved, and hates God, they're going to express that hatred in all sorts of expressions of evil, including the worship of idols.

So while I appreciate that you do not accept TD at this point, I'm trying to help you to understand why this particular objection of yours isn't a good reason to reject the doctrine. As I explained in my podcast, even if a doctrine is false--which I acknowledge TD might be--rejecting it for invalid reasons isn't a good idea, IMHO.

Just as we don't think that faith being prior to regeneration makes salvation meritorious and something we can boast about. Yet you seem do disagree. There are things about each others position that we just don't agree on.

I don't think it makes it meritorious, and I don't think you boast about it. But it remains one of the biggest reasons I am a Calvinist, for the reasons we discussed. But let's save that for another thread, or perhaps I'll call in to Steve's show.

Also, you might find this position on Romans 1 interesting:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 79da835618

I'll take a look, but just to be clear, my point with Romans 1 was never that it proves TD. Rather, my point was that we who believe in TD often point to Romans 1, which does not speak of people so depraved they turn to atheism, but rather people who are so depraved they turn to false idols. This illustrates that the doctrine has always been one which predicts people will tend toward false faiths, rather than toward atheism.

[darinhouston]

There simply is nothing in the quote you provided from Calvin, nor in Sean's quotes of other Reformed theologians, that suggests Calvinists have ever believed man will tend toward atheism.

I do believe this is a bit of a strawman (sorry, couldn't resist) -- I don't know any Arminian that believes this is the definition of TD. I frankly have never heard that before. Tending towards all evil or all sorts of evil is one thing, tending necessarily towards atheism isn't exactly the same. Some have said even that one isn't perfectly evil, but evil throughout and that no thing is done that isn't from an evil motive. That said, you also seem to disagree that a non-regenerate can seek after the true God -- what about the Jew ? I would say they aren't Christians but would you really say they seek after a false God?

[chrisdate]

I do believe this is a bit of a strawman (sorry, couldn't resist) -- I don't know any Arminian that believes this is the definition of TD. I frankly have never heard that before.

Oh I know! That's why this conversation has been a surprise to me from the beginning. As the quote from the articles of Remonstrance above demonstrate, historically Arminians have not only understood Total Depravity, they believed it! It seems to me that most critics of Calvinism today who call themselves Arminians, for better or for worse, are in fact Semi-Pelagians.

But as for whether or not what I've said is a strawman, all I can do is quote some of Sean's original statements to me. Sean, forgive me if you would have preferred I not share this, but since we're among friends of yours who share your position, and since my characterization of your objection is being called into question, I think this is important:

My problem is that I do not understand why, if total depravity is true, someone would profess faith if they are not saved...If I were to believe the doctrine of total depravity I could only conclude that unregenerate man would never serve God because even the thought of it is against his very nature. These to ideas don't mesh...The reality is, many people seek to serve God in wrong ways. I think this proves man does seek God and does seek to please God (albeit wrongly). Why would a Muslim give so much of his life to religion if every inclination of his heart was against God? If all non-Christians were atheists, you might have a point.

Do you see? With respect to Sean, his objection to TD is based on the fact that most non-Christians are not atheists. But this objection can only be made if one believes one or more of three falsehoods: A) that serving a false god is not evil; B) that professing faith in the God of the Bible without submitting oneself to Him on His terms (repentance from sin, salvation by faith alone, faith in Christ alone, etc.) is not evil; or C) that Total Depravity teaches man will tend away from any alleged god whatsoever.

But whether we're Calvinists or Arminians, or, God forbid, Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians, I would be amazed if any of us here did not agree that (A) and (B) above are false. I absolutely believe serving a false god is evil, and I absolutely believe it is evil to be unwilling to humbly submit to the true God with faith alone in Christ alone without any trust in one's works, and both are true no matter how sincere one is in one's false beliefs. And as far as (C) is concerned, Reformed theology has never said TD teaches man will tend away from any alleged god whatsoever.

Tending towards all evil or all sorts of evil is one thing, tending necessarily towards atheism isn't exactly the same. Some have said even that one isn't perfectly evil, but evil throughout and that no thing is done that isn't from an evil motive. That said, you also seem to disagree that a non-regenerate can seek after the true God -- what about the Jew ? I would say they aren't Christians but would you really say they seek after a false God?

Oh yes! They refuse to admit the possibility that God is multipersonal, despite that their own Tanakh hints at it. They refuse to admit the possibility that God could become a man, and suffer as a sacrifice for sins, despite that Isaiah prophesied it. They seek after a god which isn't the One revealed in their Tanakh.

But more importantly, they refuse to humbly submit to God's revealed will by recognizing their guilt before Him and trusting in Messiah as the sacrifice for their sins. It's not just that unregenerate man will tend toward false gods, it's that he will refuse to truly and humbly submit to Him on His terms as He has revealed. Here's how one website (http://www.suite101.com/content/reforme ... ty-a308010) puts it:

Third, because man is totally depraved, he is unable to seek God, according to Paul in Romans 3:10. This ties in with man's enmity with God and his unwillingness to obey Him. Surely, it may appear that some people are "seeking" after God, but the Calvinist would say that if we took a look at what sort of god that man was seeking, it would not be the God of Scripture. Men are unwilling and unable to seek God, so they turn to false gods, false philosophies, and false ideologies to replace Him.

You see, Total Depravity, true or not, says that man is evil and hates God. That doesn't mean he will reject any notion of "god" whatsoever, although certainly some do. Rather, it means he will either turn to false gods, or will claim to follow the true God without ever truly submitting to His will and the truth revealed in Scripture--which really isn't faith in the true God as He truly is, anyway.

[chrisdate]

The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01740c.htm) acknowledges that Arminians have historically affirmed Total Depravity:

"They (the Remonstrants) declared themselves opposed to the following doctrines...(4) The doctrine that the grace of God affects the elect only, while the reprobates cannot participate in this through their conversion, but only through their own strength. On the other hand, they, the 'Remonstrants', a name they received later from this, their 'Remonstrance', hold that man 'has no saving belief in himself, nor out of the force of his free-will', if he lives in sin, but that it is necessary that 'he be born again from God in Christ by means of His Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding and affection, or will and all strength', since without grace man cannot resist sin, although he cannot be counted as irresistible to grace.

Arminianism has historically affirmed that man is totally depraved, unable to, without God's grace, truly turn to God. What the Arminians rejected with regards to Total Depravity was not Total Depravity per se; they rejected that the kind of grace which enables one to escape their depravity is irresistible and given only to the elect. Instead, they have taught that a "prevenient grace" is necessary before men are capable of turning to Christ. As one admittedly Reformed-leaning website (http://www.gotquestions.org/prevenient-grace.html) puts it,

In the context of the on-going Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, prevenient grace is referred to in order to object to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the reason why, in both modern and historic times, it has also been called “resistible grace” or “pre-regenerating grace.” Since denying the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion is clearly against biblical teaching, the non-Calvinist theological systems have to affirm a doctrine of grace that precedes a person’s exercising of saving faith. Since non-Calvinists do not believe the saving grace of God always results in the sinner coming to Christ, Christians down through the ages have referred to a type of grace they call prevenient. Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man.

The article goes on to distinguish between different views of prevenient grace amongst Arminians:

The first of the two prominent positions on the doctrine of prevenient grace in classical Arminianism is that until the Gospel, the instrument by which God draws sinners to Himself, is presented to a sinner, the sinner is in complete bondage to sin. The Holy Spirit works with the presentation of the Gospel through teaching (John 6:45) and convicting (John 16:8) the sinner, enabling the sinner to respond in the exercising of saving faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit opens the heart (Acts 16:14) and mind (Luke 24:45) of the sinner, thus drawing the sinner to Christ (John 6:44, 12:32), and the sinner is then enabled to exercise his newly freed will in placing his faith in Christ for salvation. This falls in line with the biblical teaching that the natural man is unable to understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8), which would include the message of the Gospel. However, Arminians teach that, although the sinner is now enabled to place his faith in Christ, this enablement by no means guarantees that the sinner will actually do so...

The second position is a bit more complicated than the first. In this position there is, essentially, a lesser and greater drawing via prevenient grace, which comes through the proclamation of the Gospel and the internal calling of God, sometimes referred to as the “full intensity” of prevenient grace. That is, God is drawing all men in a lesser sense and then drawing those who have the Gospel presented to them in another, greater sense. Some have called this latter drawing the dispensing of “particular prevenient grace.” In this position, God has given all men a prevenient grace that results in a universal healing of total depravity by the grace of God through the atoning work of Christ. This, in turn, has alleviated, though not fully, the corruption of inherited depravity. This position resembles what is sometimes called the “partial depravity” of Arminianism, since total depravity no longer describes what people are but rather what people were. That is, because of the atoning work of Christ, all people are no longer completely incapable of hearing and responding to the Gospel (John 6:44, 8:43); rather, all people have some ability. However, similar to the other position in classical Arminianism, people are not completely freed from their bondage of sin until the Gospel is presented to them and God calls them internally through its presentation...

The last position on the doctrine of prevenient grace is that of the Wesleyans (also known as Wesleyan-Arminians). In this position, because of the first coming and atoning work of Christ, God has dispensed a universal prevenient grace that fully negates the depravity of man. Thus, man is now in a neutral state.

Now, based on the affirmation of the remonstrants, whom I quoted earlier, I would not be surprised if this article, despite being written at a Reformed-leaning website, is fairly accurate in its presentation of these three views. Notice that in each case, Total Depravity is affirmed. The question is, how is it escaped? One view says only the gospel brings prevenient grace, and those who never hear the gospel remain in bondage. Another says there is a lesser form of prevenient grace given prior to hearing the gospel that partially frees them from bondage. The third says all men are given prevenient grace and placed on neutral ground. Regardless, they all affirm Total Depravity, unlike the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians of old.

So it surprises me today to see critics of Calvinism deny outright the doctrine of Total Depravity, since Arminians and Calvinists alike have for so long agreed on that doctrine, despite disagreeing when it comes to whom is freed from their bondage and by what means.

[chrisdate]

Here's more, from the all-authoritative Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism):

Wesley was a champion of Arminian teachings, defending his soteriology in a periodical titled The Arminian and writing articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered. He defended Arminianism against charges of semi-Pelagianism, holding strongly to beliefs in original sin and total depravity...

Classical Arminianism (sometimes titled Reformed Arminianism or Reformation Arminianism) is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants; its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:...Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace..."

Common misconceptions [include the belief that] Arminianism is Pelagian (or Semi-Pelagian), denying original sin and total depravity – No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity; both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.

As I said before, I'm not sure yet whether most of you claim to be Arminians (although Darin, you did write, "I do believe this is a bit of a strawman...I don't know any Arminian that believes this is the definition of TD," which leads me to believe you profess Arminianism), or some other kind of non-Calvinist. But where am I going wrong in my understanding of Arminianism? The Remonstrants, who were the original followers of Arminius, professed Total Depravity; John Wesley affirmed it; GotQuestions.org, NewAdvent.org and Wikipedia.org all claim Arminians of various persuasions have always affirmed Total Depravity.

I'm not saying that the fact that Arminians and Calvinists have historically agreed on this point makes it true. I'm just making sure I'm properly understanding where you all are coming from.

[chrisdate]

Sorry for the spam, but I did say I would continue to post quotes as I find them. This one from the Society of Evangelical Arminians (http://evangelicalarminians.org/Outline ... -Calvinism):

Arminianism may be represented by the acronym FACTS:

• Freed by Grace (to Believe)
• Atonement for All
• Conditional Election
• Total Depravity
• Security in Christ

These points broadly and roughly correspond to the historic Articles of Remonstrance (though they are not specifically a representation of them), which were composed in July 1610 by early Arminians and constitute the first formal summary of Arminian theology. Article numbers have been indicated for each point for convenient comparison. The points are presented here by logical order rather than acronym order to facilitate explanation most helpfully.

Total Depravity (Article 3)

• Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity sinful, separated from God, and under the sentence of divine condemnation.
• Total depravity does not mean that human beings are as bad as they could be, but that sin impacts every part of a person’s being and that people now have a sinful nature with a natural inclination toward sin, making every human being fundamentally corrupt at heart.
• Therefore, human beings are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including merit favor from God, save ourselves from the judgment and condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin, or even believe the gospel.
• If anyone is to be saved, God must take the initiative.

[Sean]

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. 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.

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.

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.