The Philosophy of Calvinism

[Alan Gross]

[Gen 6:5 KJV] 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

1. TOTAL DEPRAVITY NEGATIVELY CONSIDERED. Total depravity is a much-misunderstood subject. For that reason we need to understand that total depravity does not mean-

(1) That man by nature is utterly devoid of conscience. Even the heathen has conscience. Rom. 2:15.

(2) That man by nature is destitute of all of those qualities that are Free Website Building Software | Create a Website - Homestead (5 of 14) [17/08/2004 10:17:59 a.m.] THE DOCTRINE OF SIN praiseworthy according to human standards. Jesus recognized the presence of such qualities in a certain rich man (Mark 10:21).

(3) That every man is by nature prone to every form of sin. This is impossible, for some forms of sin exclude others. "The sin of miserliness may exclude the sin of luxury; the sin of pride may exclude the sin of sensuality" (Strong).

(4) That men are by nature incapable of engaging in acts that are externally conformed to the law of God. Rom. 2:14.

(5) That men are as corrupt as they might be. They may and do grow worse. 2 Tim. 3:13. Thus total depravity does not mean that depravity is total in its degree. It has to do with extent only.

(6) Moreover total depravity does not mean that there is depravity or corruption of the substance or essence of the soul. Total depravity consists only of a moral perversion of all the facilities of the soul as we shall now see. It is the sinful bent of these faculties that gives to man a sinful nature.

To say that one cannot affirm that man has a sinful nature without attributing sin to the substance of the soul is to deny that there is any such thing as moral character.

Perhaps that which happened in the fall of the race cannot be better expressed than in the following words from Delitzsch; "In consequence of the first sin, the internal nature of man became possessed by death, by the dissolution of the previous unity of the manifold powers reciprocally acting in the life of the spirit and soul; and by the disappearance of the spiritual life in God's image, and its reflection in the soul.

Hitherto God's love filled the spirit's will, thought and feeling: this threefold divinely filled life of the spirit was the holy image of the Godhead in man.

But when Satanic thoughts of a loveless God found entrance into man's mind, then entered enmity . . . into the place of love, and Turba [confusion, devastation, destruction] in the place of peace: the powers of the soul fell into confusion, and kindled in passionate eagerness opposed to God" (A System of Biblical Psychology, p. 153).

This fallen condition of man is further elucidated by Strong as follows: "In fine, man no longer made God the end of his life. While he retained the power of self-determination in subordinate things, he lost that freedom which consisted in the power of choosing God as his ultimate aim.

The intuitions of the reason were abnormally obscured, since these intuitions, so far as they are concerned with moral and religious truth, are conditioned upon a right state of the affections; and--as a necessary result of this obscuring of reason--conscience, which as the moral judiciary of the soul, decides upon the basis of law given it by reason, became perverse in its deliverances.

Yet this inability to judge or act aright, since it was a moral inability springing ultimately from will, was itself hateful and condemnable" (Systematic Theology p. 307).

In man today this inherited moral inability sprang from the will of Adam which was the will of the race; therefore our will. 1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 1:12,16-19.

 

[MB]

[Gen 6:5 KJV] 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Total depravity - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
"While often misunderstood, the doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement that the Bible teaches that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6) every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin."

Based on the scripture and the statement explaining the term "total depravity", I agree it qualifies as 100% - total! The results of total depravity is that man, in his natural state, is separated from God and the preaching of the cross is foolishness to him.

To those that disagree, what percentage would you assign, if any? Is there a threshold where God says:
[Jhn 8:44 KJV] 44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

or
And GOD saw that the wickedness of this man was below the threshold, and his every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil sometime.

God forbid!

There are in my opinion quite a few things wrong with total depravity. It claims man is unable to respond to the offer of Salvation. So are you saying God is ignorant by offering Salvation to all men.
Mat_11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

The Jews were cursed for there rebellion so they could not hear or understand for rejecting Christ But Calvinist place this on all men. Romans 3:10 -20 Is the sayings of a fool. A fool in the Bible is a non believer in Psalms 14
Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

These are the sayings of a fool. Paul recited it to show man is sinful not totally depraved. When men reject God it is by there own will not because of some curse because of sin handed down from Adam. God will not punish any man for the sins of there fathers.
Paul preached the gospel to reach the lost not the lost elect. He told men what and how to be saved as the jailer in acts
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

This is the only path to Christ you must believe in order to be saved. There are no barriers but there are requirements the requirement is faith with out which there can be no Grace because grace comes through faith..
MB

 

[atpollard]

I am simply asking for a verse that says it is just to condemn an innocent man to acquit a guilty man by punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty. I accept an innocent man may be punished for a guilty man, but am asking if he can be "condemned" or treated as if he had committed that crime. (Aquinas' philosophy vs Calvin's philosophy concerning punishment).

[Mat 27:46 NASB] 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

[2Co 5:20-21 NASB] 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


erat ergo potest (He was, therefore He can.)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't know. I view Philosophy different than many. I use one of my professors definition of philosophy. He said, anything that can not be answered absolutely by Science is Philosophy.

Your professor's statement has merit, except that the ability of science to answer anything absolutely is highly questionable, as even mathematics requires axioms.

I consider philosophy to more closely refer to the way we approach something, and thus inherent in everything we do, including science, and most certainly theology. Philosophy, as such, is inescapable.

 

[Reynolds]

Your professor's statement has merit, except that the ability of science to answer anything absolutely is highly questionable, as even mathematics requires axioms.

I consider philosophy to more closely refer to the way we approach something, and thus inherent in everything we do, including science, and most certainly theology. Philosophy, as such, is inescapable.

I think that was his point. 99.99% percent of Life is philosophy. Only important question is the philosophy meaningful or vain.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think that was his point. 99.99% percent of Life is philosophy. Only important question is the philosophy meaningful or vain.

Where it is denied, it may well become vain, if it wasn't already. We see this a lot in various approaches to the Bible. We end up denying the obvious, for example, that our own origins, our own histories, our own experiences, our own personalities, play a significant part in our philosophies of theology.

 

[JonC]

[Mat 27:46 NASB] 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

[2Co 5:20-21 NASB] 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


erat ergo potest (He was, therefore He can.)

Excellent example.

The passage you provide is not the conclusion you reach.

I also believe He made Him who knew no sin sin on our behalf

But I believe Scripture interprets Scripture and therefore this is pointing to God the act of the Lord in offering His Servant as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53).

Sin is an an evil act. I do not believe most thing God made Jesus an act of evil. Perhaps God did, this time, condemn the Righteous. But that is also not what the passage states.

So we still have to explore how you get from point A (Scripture) to point B (your conclusion).

 

[atpollard]

Sin is an an evil act. I do not believe most thong God made Jesus an act of evil.

He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin ...

 

[JonC]

He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin ...

Like I said, I agree with the verse (but not any interpretation that God became evil).

Do you believe God made Christ (God) to literally be "an immoral act" (that there is no interpretation involved)?

Or do you interpret the verse to mean God made Him who knew no sin to be sin as meaning something other than an evil God (something other than the exact words of the text)?

If so, what is your process from scripture to your conclusion?

If not, how do you justify Christ literally becoming "an immoral act"? How can an unrighteous God save anyone if righteousness is a standard?

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

1. TOTAL DEPRAVITY NEGATIVELY CONSIDERED. Total depravity is a much-misunderstood subject. For that reason we need to understand that total depravity does not mean-

(1) That man by nature is utterly devoid of conscience. Even the heathen has conscience. Rom. 2:15.

(2) That man by nature is destitute of all of those qualities that are Free Website Building Software | Create a Website - Homestead (5 of 14) [17/08/2004 10:17:59 a.m.] THE DOCTRINE OF SIN praiseworthy according to human standards. Jesus recognized the presence of such qualities in a certain rich man (Mark 10:21).

(3) That every man is by nature prone to every form of sin. This is impossible, for some forms of sin exclude others. "The sin of miserliness may exclude the sin of luxury; the sin of pride may exclude the sin of sensuality" (Strong).

(4) That men are by nature incapable of engaging in acts that are externally conformed to the law of God. Rom. 2:14.

(5) That men are as corrupt as they might be. They may and do grow worse. 2 Tim. 3:13. Thus total depravity does not mean that depravity is total in its degree. It has to do with extent only.

(6) Moreover total depravity does not mean that there is depravity or corruption of the substance or essence of the soul. Total depravity consists only of a moral perversion of all the facilities of the soul as we shall now see. It is the sinful bent of these faculties that gives to man a sinful nature.

To say that one cannot affirm that man has a sinful nature without attributing sin to the substance of the soul is to deny that there is any such thing as moral character.

Perhaps that which happened in the fall of the race cannot be better expressed than in the following words from Delitzsch; "In consequence of the first sin, the internal nature of man became possessed by death, by the dissolution of the previous unity of the manifold powers reciprocally acting in the life of the spirit and soul; and by the disappearance of the spiritual life in God's image, and its reflection in the soul.

Hitherto God's love filled the spirit's will, thought and feeling: this threefold divinely filled life of the spirit was the holy image of the Godhead in man.

But when Satanic thoughts of a loveless God found entrance into man's mind, then entered enmity . . . into the place of love, and Turba [confusion, devastation, destruction] in the place of peace: the powers of the soul fell into confusion, and kindled in passionate eagerness opposed to God" (A System of Biblical Psychology, p. 153).

This fallen condition of man is further elucidated by Strong as follows: "In fine, man no longer made God the end of his life. While he retained the power of self-determination in subordinate things, he lost that freedom which consisted in the power of choosing God as his ultimate aim.

The intuitions of the reason were abnormally obscured, since these intuitions, so far as they are concerned with moral and religious truth, are conditioned upon a right state of the affections; and--as a necessary result of this obscuring of reason--conscience, which as the moral judiciary of the soul, decides upon the basis of law given it by reason, became perverse in its deliverances.

Yet this inability to judge or act aright, since it was a moral inability springing ultimately from will, was itself hateful and condemnable" (Systematic Theology p. 307).

In man today this inherited moral inability sprang from the will of Adam which was the will of the race; therefore our will. 1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 1:12,16-19.

Thanks for a thought provoking link,

 

[AustinC]

Like I said, I agree with the verse (but not any interpretation that God became evil).

Do you believe God made Christ (God) to literally be "an immoral act" (that there is no interpretation involved)?

Or do you interpret the verse to mean God made Him who knew no sin to be sin as meaning something other than an evil God (something other than the exact words of the text)?

If so, what is your process from scripture to your conclusion?

If not, how do you justify Christ literally becoming "an immoral act"? How can an unrighteous God save anyone if righteousness is a standard?

How did the atoning sacrifice take the sin of the people as their substitute? If we understand the sacrificial commands God gave to Israel, can we not understand Jesus sacrificial atonement for us?

 

[JonC]

How did the atoning sacrifice take the sin of the people as their substitute? If we understand the sacrificial commands God gave to Israel, can we not understand Jesus sacrificial atonement for us?

Good illustration. A lot depends on what one thinks is going on in the sacrifices.

I believe that the primary model is Christ as the Passover Lamb, and falling into this category is the fact that this Lamb takes away the sins of the world.

The Passover had nothing to do with sin. The lamb was slain so that death would pass over Israel and Israel then would be delivered from the bondage of Egypt. We see this deliverance repeated in Isaiah when the Northern Kingdom of Judah is in bondage. They were to be delivered from Babylon. In Isaiah 53 we get a vivid of the "Suffering Servant". But these chapter divisions are man made. The theme is still a deliverance of God's people from bondage (it is of salvation from the bondage of sin and death). This is accomplished by the Lamb becoming a guilt offering and taking on our "sickness" (the result of our sin, the "curse" under which mankind existed since Adam transgressed God's command). In other words, Christ was condemning sin in His flesh as opposed to God condemning Christ for our sin.

Does this mean that God turned Jesus into sin? Of course not. No Christian believes otherwise. Christ was not actually made to be sin. The question is if the verse means what is spoken of in Isaiah 53, in Psalm 22, in Acts 2 and 3, etc. (a guilt offering) OR if it means that condemned Christ as if Christ were a sinner.

And this is where discussion can be had - NOT in pretending Scripture states one interpretation over another but in what we believe, why we believe it, and looking at the same objective passages.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Good illustration. A lot depends on what one thinks is going on in the sacrifices.

I believe that the primary model is Christ as the Passover Lamb, and falling into this category is the fact that this Lamb takes away the sins of the world.

The Passover had nothing to do with sin. The lamb was slain so that death would pass over Israel and Israel then would be delivered from the bondage of Egypt. We see this deliverance repeated in Isaiah when the Northern Kingdom of Judah is in bondage. They were to be delivered from Babylon. In Isaiah 53 we get a vivid of the "Suffering Servant". But these chapter divisions are man made. The theme is still a deliverance of God's people from bondage (it is of salvation from the bondage of sin and death). This is accomplished by the Lamb becoming a guilt offering and taking on our "sickness" (the result of our sin, the "curse" under which mankind existed since Adam transgressed God's command). In other words, Christ was condemning sin in His flesh as opposed to God condemning Christ for our sin.

Does this mean that God turned Jesus into sin? Of course not. No Christian believes otherwise. Christ was not actually made to be sin. The question is if the verse means what is spoken of in Isaiah 53, in Psalm 22, in Acts 2 and 3, etc. (a guilt offering) OR if it means that condemned Christ as if Christ were a sinner.

And this is where discussion can be had - NOT in pretending Scripture states one interpretation over another but in what we believe, why we believe it, and looking at the same objective passages.

Can any view of this be complete without also considering the resurrection? On what basis was Christ resurrected?

 

[JonC]

Can any view of this be complete without also considering the resurrection? On what basis was Christ resurrected?

No view can. In fact, that is where Paul places our faith.

The basis of the resurrection is the faithfulness of God (Psalm 22). The Psalm begins "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". This is a cry for deliverance (it is the same cry that Israel made over and over, the same cry for help they made while in exile - that God had forgotten them and God replied that he could no longer more forget them than a mother forgets a child (Isaiah 43).

God never forsakes the righteous and never forsook the Servant. Christ was forsaken to suffer and die, but God "has not despised or disdained the suffering of the Afflicted One; He has not hidden His face from Him but listened to HIs cry for help" (Psalm 22). God offered the Son as a guilt offering, the Son give Himself as a guilt offering and He died at the hands of wicked men. God vindicated the Servant demonstrating the unjustness (and lack of understanding) of a world (Isaiah 52) of a world that viewed the Servant as "stricken and afflicted by God" when they were, in fact, the stricken ones. (Isaiah 53).

 

[AustinC]

Good illustration. A lot depends on what one thinks is going on in the sacrifices.

I believe that the primary model is Christ as the Passover Lamb, and falling into this category is the fact that this Lamb takes away the sins of the world.

The Passover had nothing to do with sin. The lamb was slain so that death would pass over Israel and Israel then would be delivered from the bondage of Egypt. We see this deliverance repeated in Isaiah when the Northern Kingdom of Judah is in bondage. They were to be delivered from Babylon. In Isaiah 53 we get a vivid of the "Suffering Servant". But these chapter divisions are man made. The theme is still a deliverance of God's people from bondage (it is of salvation from the bondage of sin and death). This is accomplished by the Lamb becoming a guilt offering and taking on our "sickness" (the result of our sin, the "curse" under which mankind existed since Adam transgressed God's command). In other words, Christ was condemning sin in His flesh as opposed to God condemning Christ for our sin.

Does this mean that God turned Jesus into sin? Of course not. No Christian believes otherwise. Christ was not actually made to be sin. The question is if the verse means what is spoken of in Isaiah 53, in Psalm 22, in Acts 2 and 3, etc. (a guilt offering) OR if it means that condemned Christ as if Christ were a sinner.

And this is where discussion can be had - NOT in pretending Scripture states one interpretation over another but in what we believe, why we believe it, and looking at the same objective passages.

While the passover illustrates the salvation from the plague in Egypt, I would have you consider that Jesus death is a covenantal death that establishes a permanent atonement. His death not only saves from a plague, but it cleanses from sin and makes propitiation. It established a New Covenant.

 

[JonC]

While the passover illustrates the salvation from the plague in Egypt, I would have you consider that Jesus death is a covenantal death that establishes a permanent atonement. His death not only saves from a plague, but it cleanses from sin and makes propitiation. It established a New Covenant.

I agree.

There seems to be two ways people look at the OT and NT. Some view the NT through the OT. Others view the OT through the NT.

This thread is about what we presuppose and how that may affect how we view and interpret passages. I view Christ as the ultimate revelation of God to man and because of this look at the OT through the lens of the New.

The theme throughout the OT is freeing Israel from bondage and keeping her as a people of God for God (whether its struggles against a military enemy, exile in a land, famine, etc.).

The Servant in Isaiah begins as the nation of Israel but throughout the book Isaiah shifts to speak of the Servant as an individual. This individual frees God's people from bondage (who have become to be more than Israel as the Lord deemed delivering Jacob too small a task).

This is still a Passover view or theme. The sacrifices all point to a New Covenant.

 

[kyredneck]

On what basis was Christ resurrected?

The righteous judgment of God:

who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 1 Pet 2:23

Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5:7

The Jews judicially murdered Him but God annulled their unrighteous judgment and raised Him from the dead.

 

[AustinC]

I agree.

There seems to be two ways people look at the OT and NT. Some view the NT through the OT. Others view the OT through the NT.

This thread is about what we presuppose and how that may affect how we view and interpret passages. I view Christ as the ultimate revelation of God to man and because of this look at the OT through the lens of the New.

The theme throughout the OT is freeing Israel from bondage and keeping her as a people of God for God (whether its struggles against a military enemy, exile in a land, famine, etc.).

The Servant in Isaiah begins as the nation of Israel but throughout the book Isaiah shifts to speak of the Servant as an individual. This individual frees God's people from bondage (who have become to be more than Israel as the Lord deemed delivering Jacob too small a task).

This is still a Passover view or theme. The sacrifices all point to a New Covenant.

Jon, you seem to say...this is Passover, but then you say...this is New Covenant. We maybe talking the same thing, but you are peering backward while I am peering forward.
I see all God's covenants as pointing to Jesus. I see the atoning sacrifices as pointing toward Jesus. I see the passover as pointing toward Jesus. They all are pointing toward Jesus. I'm not sure why there would need to be a dichotomy of these covenants. Are you viewing the Bible through a dispensational lense?

 

[JonC]

Jon, you seem to say...this is Passover, but then you say...this is New Covenant. We maybe talking the same thing, but you are peering backward while I am peering forward.
I see all God's covenants as pointing to Jesus. I see the atoning sacrifices as pointing toward Jesus. I see the passover as pointing toward Jesus. They all are pointing toward Jesus. I'm not sure why there would need to be a dichotomy of these covenants. Are you viewing the Bible through a dispensational lense?

I am saying that the Passover pointed to a greater "Passover" which is the New Covenant in which we are freed from the bondage of sin and death (rather than the bondage of Egypt).

I am not viewing the Bible through a dispensational lens, but also not from a lens of Covenant theology (I believe both have things to offer, mostly in emphases, and both have their own problems). I see a consistency in Scripture, and that is what I am conveying (or trying to convey).

You may be right that part of the thing is how we are looking (peering forward vs peering backwards). And that is an important distinction as I think often people talk past one another.

 

[MB]

The righteous judgment of God:

who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 1 Pet 2:23

Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5:7

The Jews judicially murdered Him but God annulled their unrighteous judgment and raised Him from the dead.

Not true Jesus layed down his own life no one took His life;
1Jn_3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
It's true the Jews cried for His crucifixion but they did not murder Him. The Romans placed him in crucifixion but they didn't kill Him either
MB