The Death of Calvinism is All About the “T”
In an article recently written by Robin Schumacher on the Confident Christian blog, he addresses five misconceptions about the five points of Calvinism. And he is absolutely right; they are misconceptions and miss the point entirely. I will also grant him another point: Calvinism stands or falls on total depravity or the “T” in TULIP. He stated it this way:
It is no understatement to say that once a person fully understands the doctrine of total depravity, all other points in Calvinism are easy to accept. Get this teaching wrong, and you have a theological mess on your hands.
Of course, he then proceeds to get into to the whole pointless free will/election debate. Fact is, Calvinism is a “theological mess” because total depravity also applies to Christians. Calvinism and Reformed theology in general reject the new birth—regardless of the fact that Christ said, “You must be born again.”
Calvin’s concept of total depravity, articulated by the Synod of Dort, came from Luther’s foundational tenet: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Christ does not work IN us. The Reformers called this “infused grace” and posited it as the primary contention with Rome.
So, what are the Reformers talking about when they refer to Christ in us? I’m glad you asked. They mean, Christ in us BY FAITH ALONE. All of the work Christ does is outside us and accomplished by Christ alone for justification and sanctification both. Let me make this point by reminding you of how often you also hear this in Reformed circles:
Christ for us.
Like total depravity: not only “for” salvation, but “for” sanctification as well. Christ “for us” in sanctification because they believe sanctification finishes justification. Sanctification is actually the progressive in progressive justification. They call it “progressive sanctification,” but this is deliberate deception. That’s why all grace must remain outside of us lest we are enabled to partake in the finishing of our justification which would not be a perfect work because we are involved. They don’t separate justification and sanctification; justification is not a finished work.
That’s why Calvinism falls dead on the “T.”
paul
Reblogged this on Paul's Passing Thoughts.
Paul,
I must respectfully disagree. The free will/election debate is hardly pointless. If you cannot reconcile it, then you can never truly win the philosophical argument with Calvinism. The power of Calvinism IS election. You cannot be both a determinist and a freewiilist. If you concede election in any way, you concede the entire argument. By declaring the free will/election contradiction a pointless matter, you ultimately undercut your entire life’s work in this area.
Destroy the false doctrine of election, and you destroy Calvinism entirely. TD is not the lynchpin of Calvinism. Election is.
If election is true then man is not himself. If man is not himself, then who chooses Christ is irrelevant, for in the case of a non-existent independent consciousness, then neither God nor man can truly choose. No one can make a choice for someone who does not exist.
[...] The Death of Calvinism is All About the “T”. [...]
And this bears hearing: For the “elect”, GOOD and EVIL are merely different words for the exact same thing. By definition, morality cannot have no bearing on election or un-election. Good and evil thus are irrelevant; each pragmatically the same as the other.
Additionally, election must, and I mean MUST be utterly arbitrary on God’s part. For if all men are equally lacking, then there can be nothing within man by which to elect him on ‘God’s part. That being said, even God Himself, then, cannot know why one person is elect and another is not. For if He could know, then there would need to be a standard by which God could choose. However, in election, the choice is merely between God and NOT God, for again, moral worth or any action whatsoever on the part of the person is impossible to judge. For if men are elect before they are born, then they can do nothing at all to warrant anything by which they can be elect. So, again, it is utterly an arbitrary choice on God’s part. Which means God has created a situation by which He, Himself cannot articulate a REASON for ACTING. This couples God with meaningless behavior, and is an affront to His omnipotence. In effect, if God elects, then He cannot be perfect. If He is not perfect, He is not God. And all us Christians are liars. Truly God can do what He likes, as the Bible states, but He cannot act contrary to His perfection. Perfection implies some behavior that God simply cannot violate, because it is a violation of Himself. One type of behavior, He cannot be arbitrary.
Therefore, election, as defined by the neo-Reformed is, in fact, theologically, metaphysically, and logically impossible. And if election is false, then man must be able to DO something by which he can be saved, even if that something is accept Christ. And if this is true, then Total Depravity is false, and all of Calvinism crumbles.
Destroy election as taught by the neo-Cals, and you destroy their philosophy.
I mean, “by definition morality CAN HAVE no bearing…”, in the first paragraph. Clumsy fingers.
Argo,
The problem with the freewill/election debate is that most Christians don’t see it as a fellowship issue. It’s important, but I think fellowship issues need to be emphasized first. This debate is a ticket for the wolf to get into the sheep pin.
Paul,
True. Good point.
Another prob with the election/free will part is that most folks have been so indoctrinated on both sides (cal and non cal) that it is speaking to individuals instead of groups (Jew/Gentile) it is impossible to discuss with the individualisstic premise attached.