Purgos

I am finally getting around to responding to Sarah’s question about Calvinism.  This will not be typical but with having a baby and all I apologize for my lack of promptness.  So I will summarize each of the five points, certainly with my own position being evident.  A couple of preliminary observations:

1. The five points of Calvinism are easily remembered through the mnemonic TULIP.  Although people have attempted to re-title some of these in an effort at clarity there is no reason not to use the historic labels since they accurately convey the central ideas of each point.  This is not to say, however, that no explanation is needed.   

2. The five points of Calvinism reflect the Synod of Dort’s (Nov. 1618-May 1619) conclusions in response to five articles put out by the Remonstrants.  The Remonstrants were followers of Jacobus Arminius who got their name from a document or “Remonstrance” that they, as followers of Arminius, issued in 1610.  This was after Arminius’ death in 1609.  So what has become known as the five points of Calvinism were a formalized, Dortian response to Arminius’ followers.  Incidentally Arminius was actually a trained Calvinist under Theodore Beza who was asked to refute a Dutch theologian named Dirck Koornert and his objections to Calvinism. In preparation for the refutation Arminius came to agree with Koornert.

3. Since the five points are articulations from Dort it creates a misperception to uniformly link them with John Calvin.  It is true that Calvin clearly articulated four of the five points.  It is not accurate to say that he clearly subscribed to what later became known as “limited atonement”.  Throughout his voluminous Institutes one can find limited and unlimited statements regarding the atonement.  Theologians look in vain to Calvin for clear justification for “limited atonement.”

So I will take them in their common order.  First a summary of Total Depravity

Total depravity can also be titled, as one helpful article does, “Human Helplessness”.  Total depravity is the teaching that as humans we are innately sinful and cannot respond in and of ourselves to the light of Christ.  We must be enlightened and empowered because our sin renders us impotent to choose eternal good independent of Divine aid.  You will notice I use the term “eternal good” rather than “moral good.”  Total depravity does not teach that humans are as bad as they could be or are incapable of acting in socially or morally appropriate ways.  Instead, it is a predication about their nature that has deep spiritual implications. 

The Bible teaches the truth of total depravity in several texts and also conveys it in the underlying tone of other passages as well.  Rom. 5:12 teaches that death came to all men because through the sin of one man (Adam) all sinned.  The Greek indicates that all sinned in some point in past time.  In other words, in some sense I sinned in Adam.  Some take a seminal view that teaches that I was in Adam as my ancestor (the same way Levi was in the body of his ancestor Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10).  Another view takes a representative approach that we sinned in the sense that Adam functioned as our representative head of the human race.  In any event the text clearly teaches that I sinned when Adam sinned. 

Following Adam’s sin we see the progression of a sinful humanity spiraling toward the flood generation where Moses could record of man that “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” (Gen. 6:5)

While repenting of his sin with Bathsheba, David says in Ps. 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”  In addition, the prophet Jeremiah declared, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer.17:9)  They are clearly saying something about the nature of the human situation from the get go, from birth.A final passage I will mention is Eph. 2:3.  Here Paul is contrasting what we were without Christ to what we are with Him.  This of course sets up that great passage that gives us the nature of salvation, Eph. 2:8-9.  It is important to note that the gift of God is set against the backdrop of the depravity of man.  If man is not totally depraved can it really be a gift?  Wouldn’t it then be at best a joint effort, where I do my part and God does his?  But this is not what Paul says and not at all the sense of what he is trying to convey.  In 2:3 we read, “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”  Notice we are by our very nature objects of wrath.  This is informing us of our condition independent of our actions.  Another way of saying this is to say that we are totally depraved.  We are utterly helpless to change our spiritual condition.A final and important note.  While humanity is totally depraved, moral and societal goodness can come from depraved creatures since we are all made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:6; cf. Ps. 8:4-5).  As Tim Keller has noted, “The Biblical doctrine of the universal image of God, therefore, leads Christians to expect nonbelievers will be better than any of their mistaken beliefs could make them.  The Biblical doctrine of universal sinfulness also leads Christians to expect believers will be worse in practice than their orthodox beliefs should make them.”  Universal sinfulness or total depravity keeps humans from knowing God without the veil being lifted by Divine grace.  The universal image of God allows humans to act in moral and socially beneficial ways without having yet partaken of saving grace.