Featured A question for my fellow Calvinists

Total Depravity is an interesting point. Any good or "kind" deed we do is a work.James is pretty plain that any and all works done outside Christ are to God as a bloody menstrual cloth. I would say the hypers are correct about total depravity. (That is my Classical Arminian view of Total Depravity.)

 

If EVERYONE is born as absolutely evil as they can be, then what did Jesus mean when he said:

[Luke 6:32-33 NASB] 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 "If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners do the same.

The Totally Immoral, 100% Evil would not repay love with love. An abusive drunk repays love with abuse.

I believe quite strongly that Total Depravity really means closer to Total Inability in modern English.

 

The love and good in that passage are man's love and man's good.
James 2:10
Is 64:6

 

As do I.
When I was first exposed to the "Canons of Dordt", I thought to myself...what do they mean by "depravity"?
Rather than looking up the word in the dictionary, I simply went with what I had learned in English class..." totally depraved", in the moral sense.

Later on, I discovered that it means, "corruption"..."perversion", or "degradation".
That's what I see happening in Romans 1, to mankind in general.

 

This is a problem for me.h

I have no desire to remove the thread from the OP, but my thinking does not agree that one must cling to all four points of the TULIP without allowing for modification.

I agree on four of the five points. Teach 4 of the 5 points. I must modify one.

I do not hold to the typical presentation by Calvinists of the atonement as it relates to the limit of blood supply.

Rather, (as I have posted extensively on the topic) the "L" is limited belief (as seen particularly from the writings of John).

I do not present the death and resurrection of Christ had or has any benefit to the unredeemed, such is for the chosen redeemed, only.

I do present that the blood was for the forgiveness of all sin of all creation, not just humans but the whole.

That does not mean all are sinless, and therefore all are not condemned. Such a presentation misrepresents for forgiveness does not mean consequences are also removed. Example, I can forgive my neighbor for killing my child, but the consequences remain.

Forgiveness removes the excuse barring the offer of reconciliation. Paul preached reconciliation as an ambassador.

Therefore, it is belief (which is limited by the purposed selection of God to graciously give such believe to those of His choosing) that is the limit, not the blood of the atonement.

Again, not to derail the thread, but to attempt in a single post to clarify.

So, can I rightly claim the title Calvinist? No.

Can I rightly be labeled a Calvinist? by some, by others according to this thread I am not.

I am known more in the assembly as "servant of the Lord" than by any other title.

 

Double "predestination" fails because (imo) it is a bit of difficult word definition problem.

I hold that prior to "in the beginning" (which is another topic) God selected individuals according to His pleasure and purpose to be redeemed. But did He actually predestine (select) the lost? Not in my thinking.

The lost were already lost (condemned already). He didn't have to appoint them as lost and He didn't have to assign them as lost. All He was obliged by His Love to do is to prepare a place for the lost for their eternal keeping.

Now, certainly, in the application of "double predestination" the results are the same, one spends eternity with the Father by His pleasure, or one is cast into eternity away from His presence.

It is the appointment itself. God did not determination to assign some to be outside His presence. That was not His determination. Rather such determination is already a done deal, folks are already in such a determination not by God but by their own nature. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. His love obliged a place for such to reside. They were not predestined to that place, but it was a place prepared for those of rebellion.

What then is predestined? Those God purposed for His reasons to eternal life in His presence.

 

I understand and appreciate that view.

I have considered that part of mix in my decision as presented above was because one must also concern the matter of freedom of the will. In dealing with believers (even calvinistic thinking ones) once that matter is settled, then they will ascribe to double predetermined by election destiny as you do, or election to a single destiny with the rest untouched as I do. But, they will not remain non-calvinistic in their thinking.

I don't know what you have encountered in this matter (again not to change the topic of the thread). It seems that those who assume (even some Calvinistic thinking folks) that the unregenerate will of man is somehow part of the regeneration, do more often become confused when sorting out the double or single predetermined destiny.

Paul shared about the renewing of the mind, but it is a continual process prone to decline with age. Yet, the new Creation has no such renewing or declining.

I hold that because in redemption God does not in any aspect awaken or use anything of the old, but presents us as a completely new creation (even Paul remarking that it is yet to be revealed what we shall be) including new will, then it is not difficult to come to the place of the choosing being one directional. God presently imparts through the Holy Spirit aspects of the New Creation. That such as a new will, a new perspective, a new intellectual capacity, peace that passes understanding, Spirit gifts, ... all this that war against the forces of the old nature and enemies of Christ which the final victory is found as we pass from this residence to the eternal residence.

Doing so resolves issues relating to "double election" without disturbing that fact that folks are destined to eternity - an eternity with the Father, or the eternity outside His presence. That He didn't choose some for eternal loss and other eternal salvation. Rather, He chose to make a new Creation, and for the populace of that place He chose certain like aspects from the old (trees, buildings, rivers, animals...) to be duplicated including humans of His choosing and presenting them in the new creation as a new creation.

But I don't have difficulty fellowshipping with folks not persuaded into agreement.

 

I agree. It's like the Compatibilists are really trying to make their paradigm more acceptable with the public. Buyer needs to beware though! When you take the wraps off of what they say it's still the hard line position of the others and wise is the one who doesn't allow anyone to them them anything different.

 

I'm fine with being called a Calvinist. I just don't call myself that, because I grew up hearing it in a different context and it just doesn't seem right on my ear.

My mother was a sociology professor and I grew up listening to her lectures about Calvinism (most were accurate) and I guess, because of that, I think of "Calvinism" as being a very small box that doesn't express my beliefs very well (although they are certainly consistent with Calvinism).

 

I have no problem with the label, but if describing myself I would be more likely to use another term.

1. Paedobaptism, ecclesiology, & etc.

2. Nope

3. I like Monergist, and Particular Baptist has a nice ring to it.