Calvinism: Why is it so unpopular on CF?

[I <3 Abraham]

I think that this thread has gotten off topic, now we are going back and forth on the question of what to do with "sinners", we could be talking about anything:homosexuality, playing cards, dancing, or not wearing appropriate undergarments to church. To get us back on track a little bit. What does it mean to believe in the whole total depravity thing? Can we as Christians advise one another spiritually and if so, how? I am unclear on what total depravity means exactly so that might be a good place to start.

 

[heymikey80]

I think that this thread has gotten off topic, now we are going back and forth on the question of what to do with "sinners", we could be talking about anything:homosexuality, playing cards, dancing, or not wearing appropriate undergarments to church. To get us back on track a little bit. What does it mean to believe in the whole total depravity thing? Can we as Christians advise one another spiritually and if so, how? I am unclear on what total depravity means exactly so that might be a good place to start.

Sure. Total depravity means that there's nothing you do that's not affected in some way by sin's corruption.

It doesn't mean you can't do things or think things that are commendable from a human standpoint. It means they have little standing with God. It also means they hold subtle seeds of ultimately self-destructing over the Eternal long-term.

Christians and for that matter all human beings can advise one another. But their advice is affected by their depravity. For us westerners it's normally corrupted by self-interest. But even among the altruistic it's corrupted, however subtly, when it's not accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit to accomplish something good thereby. We're all dependent on the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives for every truly good thing we do.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Sure. Total depravity means that there's nothing you do that's not affected in some way by sin's corruption.

It doesn't mean you can't do things or think things that are commendable from a human standpoint. It means they have little standing with God. It also means they hold subtle seeds of ultimately self-destructing over the Eternal long-term.

Christians and for that matter all human beings can advise one another. But their advice is affected by their depravity. For us westerners it's normally corrupted by self-interest. But even among the altruistic it's corrupted, however subtly, when it's not accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit to accomplish something good thereby. We're all dependent on the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives for every truly good thing we do.

Lots of questions

Can we advise one another on matters of salvation when that advice would not sound good to God? If our advice also has seeds of destruction in it, why are we passing it along? This otherwise inescapable problem seems to be tempered by the influence of the Holy Spirit, as you said. How are we to know, however, when the Holy Spirit has acted upon us? Or on other people for that matter?

 

[heymikey80]

Can we advise one another on matters of salvation when that advice would not sound good to God? If our advice also has seeds of destruction in it, why are we passing it along?

Interpreting the question as "should we advise ...?" the answer is no. Neither is the answer "yes." It's not good to advise wrongly, nor is it good to neglect giving the right advice. If the question is about how to escape doing wrong, then, you see there is no alternative: you're condemned. Period.

Ultimately everyone is condemned outside God's mercy. But doing good, following the Law, is ultimately beyond us (cf. Matt 5-6, Rom 3:9-19). Something has to happen apart from our doing good (Rom 3:21).

Our words alone would condemn us. Even our silence would condemn us of neglect. But we're depending on not being alone.

This otherwise inescapable problem seems to be tempered by the influence of the Holy Spirit, as you said. How are we to know, however, when the Holy Spirit has acted upon us? Or on other people for that matter?

Well there's a more basic question: how do we know anything with certainty? You'll find this an intractable problem. Centuries of philosophers have tackled it with few (in their view) to no (in my view) real results. There are only relative positives. And when they're relative to an uncertain standard, how can we even call them "positives"? Is our own ego a good standard to go by? What about a hundred egos in a company, or a million egos in a government?

We only know things uncertainly, and we only have uncertain standard to know them by. The best standard we have (the Law, interpreted by its Author) condemns us at every turn (Rom 3:9-19).

Ultimately we could know with certainty only by relying on the Spirit of God and in submission to Him. He's the Absolute. With so much corruption, we can't "know" even through our firsthand experience.

Once we start looking at the level we really live at, then we can start tackling the facts of our status before God. As I look at that status, it looks like this: I'm a dependent, and a vicious sort of a dependent at that, constantly biting the Hand that feeds me. (Rom 3, 7:14ff)

What's my method of rescue? How can I escape this situation? (Rom 3:21ff, 7:25ff)

 

[Dmckay]

Perhaps if people showed more love, people would be less irritated. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I realize that this is no excuse for people to be unloving, but when people are baited, accused, and mocked the natural human tendancy is to go defensive.

Those who hold to T.U.L.I.P. are usually overwhelmed by the fact that G-d might have deigned to extend His grace to us. It causes me to want to share that grace and love with as many as I possibly can. But, because I hold to T.U.L.I.P. and realize that unless the Holy Spirit has been at work and prepared the ground it doesn't matter the individual I am sharing the Gospel with rejects it, either it isn't the right time for them to accept, or they aren't among the elect.

This is the reason that Paul could be content when forced to leave a city in which he was ministering. He knew that either he had reached all those whom the Lord would have him reach up until that time. Or that if there was someone else who still needd to hear, that G-d would provide another way for that person to hear of Christ.

It has been my experience over the years that those who hold to T.U.L.I.P. are more content in Ministry and don't burn out with the frequency of Pastors who are more Arminian. The results are always up to G-d. All we have to do is be lovingly, faithful in representing Christ.

 

[CCWoody]

What does it mean to believe in the whole total depravity thing? Can we as Christians advise one another spiritually and if so, how? I am unclear on what total depravity means exactly so that might be a good place to start.

From reformed.org:

Total Depravity (Total Inability)

Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.

The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).


​

The above definition is but a mere snapshot of the Canons of Dordt, the defining article for the TULIP.
Does this mean that I can advise another Christian on spiritual matters? Absolutely!!! My spirit has been regenerated and redeemed from the power of sin and the effects of the fall.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Well there's a more basic question: how do we know anything with certainty? You'll find this an intractable problem. Centuries of philosophers have tackled it with few (in their view) to no (in my view) real results. There are only relative positives. And when they're relative to an uncertain standard, how can we even call them "positives"? Is our own ego a good standard to go by? What about a hundred egos in a company, or a million egos in a government?

I'm glad you asked, normally people get mad at me when I say that we CAN'T know things for certain, especially when I apply that to the bible. The self-reflecting nature of knowledge and interpretation is also it's most wonderous facet. Here's what I mean: when we read scripture (or anything) we are learning and interpretting as we go. When I read one passage I feel I understand it to a certain degree, when I read further I may understand the prior passage differently. At every moment of reading, one's interpretation changes. This is also equally true of life in general and is nicely summed up in the addage "live and learn".

There is, however, something that exists within the words that I am reading. This is evidenced by the fact that I am able to understand and be understood by other readers of the same text. This is espeecially true when disagreements arise: I cite a passage in support of an interpretation and another reader believes the same passage means something totally different. If we are reading scripture then these disagreements can become quite heated, as this thread has shown.

The reason for this is simple: both interlocutors believe that they are right before they begin to converse with their partner. The interaction that follows is, at best, an attempt to convince the other and, at worst, an attempt to prove the other is wrong. I believe this is where any disagreement we might have lays: I do not believe that I am capable of knowing with any certaintly when something is right.
If I go out into the world with the desire to preach to others with the WRONG motivation (convincing others I am right or they are wrong) than I believe I will sow only discord and conflict. If, however, I am attempting rather to work out my own faith and always have my ears open for truth, then my interlocutory partner will not "go defensive", as someone here put it, because I will not be on the attack! I actuall have to leave in a couple minutes so I will try to practice what I preach (HA!) and find some common ground we share

I believe that we both hold to the idea that we must always be skeptical of our own piety and righteousness. I would go so far as to opine that you are more likely to hear truth in words you hear another say (or write) than your own "gut" reaction to something.

Anywho, I gotta go, sorry for the rambulation.

 

[heymikey80]

I'd say you're more on the right track than those who think there is fundamental knowing apart from faith (ie, fundamental knowing).To me there's something a little more at work here, but yes I'd pretty-much agree with you there.

I'll tell you, it won't matter how you approach an issue. Some people will still be offended; others will ignore you; others will confront you.

Yes, in the absence of any conversion power, in any argument -- even a civil, cordial comparison of views -- we'll simply overlap on what we agree on, then try to understand one another, and nothing will change. You might generate an openness from others to consider what you say, you're quite right there. But they can and will close up on certain issues they feel are important. They'll listen to new insights, sure. But they'll only learn from what they don't feel they know about. That's admittedly the essence of "gnosis": they're being taught something new. Otherwise there're only two ways of humanly dealing with conflict: acceptance and rejection.

There's a different thing at work in Christ. It's a revolutionary type of power, straight from God, the One Who makes something out of nothing. In earlier centuries it was called Reformation. Even earlier it's called Redemption, and New Creation. It changes us. And it doesn't stop changing us. These aren't little plastic covers bolted onto our lives for the passage into eternity. It gets ingrained into us. And it's compelling. Once we've experienced it, we crave it. We want it, more and more, even when it hurts, and I can tell you, in our maturity we chew hungrily on it even when it comes from outside influences and confrontational, oppositional, and divisive influences.

And maybe that's the point of Scripture. Neither of our sides authored Scripture: it comes from the distant past. So when we both engage Scripture to try to resolve on the truth it's delivering to us, I say we suddenly have a new Voice amid us. There aren't two people arguing over what they have in common -- there's a Third with a message about what both people should have in common.

That third view often shows itself nowhere near what the other two people brought to the table on their own. And I think in the endeavour to search for Scripture's meaning, the Spirit of God impresses on us a new element of Reformation. Really, a change for the better can only come from the Spirit; and we have to decide whether Scripture is really intended to bring that about (and thus is inspired, maybe even infallible), or if it's not.

Without the Spirit, though, we're just fighting "King of the Hill". The real King hasn't shown Himself. And the Scripture is pointer to that real King, probably the only unvarying pointer across the years that we'll ever have.

Ultimately our conclusions about Scriptural infallibility won't satisfy us in a vacuum. Because they'll be faulty. It seems to me it's through the Spirit of God that good things occur. Since most attempts neglect the Spirit of God and then try to find out how Scripture accomplishes its work, they seem bound to miss the point.

I'm not really sure how else to tackle the job, though. Yes, we have to interact knowing we are crooked people, always going wrong. But we do so with hope in God's perfection, because the Spirit can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

I'd say you're more on the right track than those who think there is fundamental knowing apart from faith (ie, fundamental knowing).To me there's something a little more at work here, but yes I'd pretty-much agree with you there.

I'll tell you, it won't matter how you approach an issue. Some people will still be offended; others will ignore you; others will confront you.

Yes, in the absence of any conversion power, in any argument -- even a civil, cordial comparison of views -- we'll simply overlap on what we agree on, then try to understand one another, and nothing will change. You might generate an openness from others to consider what you say, you're quite right there. But they can and will close up on certain issues they feel are important. They'll listen to new insights, sure. But they'll only learn from what they don't feel they know about. That's admittedly the essence of "gnosis": they're being taught something new. Otherwise there're only two ways of humanly dealing with conflict: acceptance and rejection.

There's a different thing at work in Christ. It's a revolutionary type of power, straight from God, the One Who makes something out of nothing. In earlier centuries it was called Reformation. Even earlier it's called Redemption, and New Creation. It changes us. And it doesn't stop changing us. These aren't little plastic covers bolted onto our lives for the passage into eternity. It gets ingrained into us. And it's compelling. Once we've experienced it, we crave it. We want it, more and more, even when it hurts, and I can tell you, in our maturity we chew hungrily on it even when it comes from outside influences and confrontational, oppositional, and divisive influences.

And maybe that's the point of Scripture. Neither of our sides authored Scripture: it comes from the distant past. So when we both engage Scripture to try to resolve on the truth it's delivering to us, I say we suddenly have a new Voice amid us. There aren't two people arguing over what they have in common -- there's a Third with a message about what both people should have in common.

That third view often shows itself nowhere near what the other two people brought to the table on their own. And I think in the endeavour to search for Scripture's meaning, the Spirit of God impresses on us a new element of Reformation. Really, a change for the better can only come from the Spirit; and we have to decide whether Scripture is really intended to bring that about (and thus is inspired, maybe even infallible), or if it's not.

Without the Spirit, though, we're just fighting "King of the Hill". The real King hasn't shown Himself. And the Scripture is pointer to that real King, probably the only unvarying pointer across the years that we'll ever have.

Ultimately our conclusions about Scriptural infallibility won't satisfy us in a vacuum. Because they'll be faulty. It seems to me it's through the Spirit of God that good things occur. Since most attempts neglect the Spirit of God and then try to find out how Scripture accomplishes its work, they seem bound to miss the point.

I'm not really sure how else to tackle the job, though. Yes, we have to interact knowing we are crooked people, always going wrong. But we do so with hope in God's perfection, because the Spirit can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.

You know, I am struck by the promise Jesus made about gatherings of people praising his name. He promised he would be there when 2 (or 3, I forget... gather in praise of Him. I believe that any serious attempt to further our understading or connection with our Lord is a form of praise. It could be bible study or going to church or discussing Jesus and his teachings. Even this conversation, as long as we attempt to deepen our connection with Jesus (as opposed to glorify ourselves) is a form of praise. That is a good thing because it means that Jesus IS HERE, he promised.

I bring this up because of your discussion of the "third voice" that we should try to listen for. If we are going to listen for Jesus' input, it would help if he was there, wouldn't you agree? I think that this discussion has gleaned yet another reason to be civil, humble and hungy for spiritual truth in our dealings with folks here on CF.

 

[heymikey80]

You know, I am struck by the promise Jesus made about gatherings of people praising his name. He promised he would be there when 2 (or 3, I forget... gather in praise of Him. I believe that any serious attempt to further our understading or connection with our Lord is a form of praise. It could be bible study or going to church or discussing Jesus and his teachings. Even this conversation, as long as we attempt to deepen our connection with Jesus (as opposed to glorify ourselves) is a form of praise. That is a good thing because it means that Jesus IS HERE, he promised.

I bring this up because of your discussion of the "third voice" that we should try to listen for. If we are going to listen for Jesus' input, it would help if he was there, wouldn't you agree? I think that this discussion has gleaned yet another reason to be civil, humble and hungy for spiritual truth in our dealings with folks here on CF.

I can't say it any better! There's definitely a sense in which Calvinists get so caught up in the elegance of our thinking, that we lose sight of our own messiness.

Because of that tendency I've taken to reminding myself that this first element of Calvinism -- Total Inability -- reminds me that it still applies to me. "We are all wrong."

 

[Proeliator]

I can't say it any better! There's definitely a sense in which Calvinists get so caught up in the elegance of our thinking, that we lose sight of our own messiness.

Because of that tendency I've taken to reminding myself that this first element of Calvinism -- Total Inability -- reminds me that it still applies to me. "We are all wrong."

 

[CCWoody]

I can't say it any better! There's definitely a sense in which Calvinists get so caught up in the elegance of our thinking, that we lose sight of our own messiness.

Because of that tendency I've taken to reminding myself that this first element of Calvinism -- Total Inability -- reminds me that it still applies to me. "We are all wrong."

I would suggest, though, that there are those of us who are gifted as teachers and the rest of the gathering needs to be humble enough to listen to those gifted. So, while we do share the struggle with sin as do all the saints, those of us with 5 talents in teaching had best not dig a hole. Those of us with little talent in this area had best not hide ourselves in the hole.

Spurgeon puts it this way....

We now come, in the third place, to notice the differences which God often makes in his Church in HONORABLE GIFTS. There is a difference made between God&#8217;s own children &#8212; when they are his children. Note what I mean: One hath the honorable gift of knowledge, another knows but little. I meet, every now and then, with a dear Christian brother with whom I could talk for a month, and learn something from him every day. He has had deep experience &#8212; he has seen into the deep things of God &#8212; his whole life has been a perpetual study wherever he has been. He seems to have gathered thoughts, not from books merely, but from men, from God, from his own heart. He knows all the intricacies and windings of Christian experience: he understands the height, the depths, the lengths, and the breadths of the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge. He has gained a grand idea, an intimate knowledge of the system of grace, and can vindicate the dealings of the Lord with his people.

​

Then you meet with another who has passed through many troubles, but he has no deep acquaintance with Christian experience. He never learned a single secret by all his troubles. He just floundered out of one trouble into another, but never stopped to pick up any of the jewels that lay in the mire &#8212; never tried to discover the precious jewels that lay in his afflictions. He knows very little more of the heights and depths of the Savior&#8217;s love than when he first came into the world. You may converse with such a man as long as you like, but you will get nothing from him. If you ask why is it, I answer, there is a Sovereignty of God in giving knowledge to some and not to others. I was walking the other day with an aged Christian, who told me how he had profited by my ministry. There is nothing humbles me like that thought of yon old man deriving experience in the things of God, receiving instruction in the ways of the Lord from a mere babe in grace. But I expect that when I am an old man, if I should live to be such, that some babe in grace will instruct me. God sometimes shutteth the mouth of the old man and openeth the mouth of the child. Why should we be a teacher to hundreds who are, in some respects, far more able to teach us? The only answer we can find is in the Divine Sovereignty, and we must bow before it, for has he not a right to do as he wills with his own ? Instead of being envious of those who have the gift of knowledge, we should seek to gain the same, if possible. Instead of sitting down and murmuring that we have not more knowledge, we should remember that the foot cannot say to the head, nor the head to the foot, I have no need of thee, for God hath given us talents as it hath pleased him.​

​

 

[Elect]

I don't really get it, could somebody reading this (from either side) explain why people seem to hate Calvinism so much? I've read some really ridiculous threads on the subject. My favorite is definitely "I'll never join you Count Calvin" in which Calvinism is likened to Count Dooku and the philosophy of the dark side of the force...

The infantile nature of the comparison aside, why is it that yall rub people the wrong way?

Here are three top reasons that I see that Calvinism is so unpopular.

First, the Doctrines of Grace, also known as the five points of Calvinism, humbles man and exults God. It takes everything away from man and gives it to God. As people we like to think that we are in control. How dare anyone come along tell us different.

Second, the belief that God is trying to save everyone. They have to come up with something to why God can't save everyone. The free-will myth.

Thirdly, sinners don't want to be ruled over by a Holy, Righteous God.

 

[Catherineanne]

Even if they are an unrepented, wicked, enemy of God who hold to beliefs that attack His name?
What about Christians who hold to views that are are contradictoring to what God has revealed in His word? Are we to accept them just as they are?

Yes.
Yes.

That is what Our Lord did. Can we do less?

 

[Catherineanne]

How come it is that you have not accepted me for what I believe? Rather, you have gone out of your way on my thread to personally attack me.

You know, suggest that I am a homophobe, etc. Yep, real "loving."

That is what you saw because that is what you were looking for.

 

[Beoga]

Yes.
Yes.

That is what Our Lord did. Can we do less?

I know Jesus ate with tax collectors and other sinners, but did He accept them as they were or did He tell them to repent?

 

[Catherineanne]

Does this mean that I can advise another Christian on spiritual matters? Absolutely!!! My spirit has been regenerated and redeemed from the power of sin and the effects of the fall.

Isn't humility a beautiful sight to see?

Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we ought to.

In the words of St Francis; preach the Gospel at all times. If absolutely necessary, use words.
Works for me.

 

[Catherineanne]

I know Jesus ate with tax collectors and other sinners, but did He accept them as they were or did He tell them to repent?

First he accepted them as they were. Totally and absolutely. This is the heart of the Gospel; that Our Lord meets us where we are, and accepts who we are, and loves us.

Second, he called them to repentance.

However, he did not make the first action dependant on the second. The second, rather, is offered freely as a result of his love and acceptance.

It is not, repent and then I will love you. It is; God loves you and calls you to himself, and offers this love as a gift for you.

We are all free to accept the gift or not, but the love is not conditional on the repentance. What is conditional on the repentance is an ongoing relationship with God, but not his love.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Isn't humility a beautiful sight to see?

Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we ought to.

In the words of St Francis; preach the Gospel at all times. If absolutely necessary, use words.
Works for me.

Gosh I detest that quote... for...

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

Romans 10:14-15

Works are one thing, but it's always absolutely necessary to preach the gospel. So, Bible > Francis of Assissi any day.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[seekingpurity047]

First he accepted them as they were. Totally and absolutely. This is the heart of the Gospel; that Our Lord meets us where we are, and accepts who we are, and loves us.

Second, he called them to repentance.

However, he did not make the first action dependant on the second. The second, rather, is offered freely as a result of his love and acceptance.

It is not, repent and then I will love you. It is; God loves you and calls you to himself, and offers this love as a gift for you.

We are all free to accept the gift or not, but the love is not conditional on the repentance. What is conditional on the repentance is an ongoing relationship with God, but not his love.

Tell me this then: Does God love His Church in the exact same way that He loves the reprobate?

To the glory of God,

Randy