Are you now? Then why not look it up, instead of using your ignorance as an excuse for another mindless ad hominem? There are many pages on Calvin’s 5 points in Google
“Total depravity: This doctrine, also called “total inability”, asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)This doctrine is borrowed from Augustine who was a member of a Manichaean sect in his youth”.
Re the bolded: Thus this doctrine, held by many conservative Protestants, is based on the mythical Adam and Eve.
Excerpt from Tassman’s post 1277 on ‘There is no evidence for a biblical jesus’ at Theology Web Campus – Apologetics 301 (that should be jesus, with a captitalized ‘J’ – no harm, it a common error in this pluralistic era.
)
My comments:
Before we take a closer look at Tassman’s ideas – ie., ‘based on the mythical Adam and Eve’ , the first being his statement:
‘There are many pages on Calvin’s 5 points in Google’
I’m sure there are but if my memory serves me (back in the days when I was studying Calvinism) the five points were not Calvin’s, but points which were assembled by others. Though, there is not doubt that the points were extracted from the writings of Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) they most certainly don’t reflect the entire scope of his reasoning in this regard.
Secondly, the comment:
‘Thus this doctrine, held by many conservative Protestants, is based on the mythical Adam and Eve.’
Focusing on the phrase ‘based on’ and my memories of studies of the reformed teachings, I’m pretty sure that the ideas taught by the early Protestants and even Calvin himself, were based on the whole of Scripture plus the observations of men and women who were broad thinkers and who would have been familiar with current views of science at the time.
I’m not going to go into this in great detail, but if one reads through Romans. (I think it’s chapter 3, one encounters a description of the nature of man, based on quotes from the Pslams.)
Now to my own thoughts.
It’s not the first time that the matter of the nature of man has been addressed by and outsider (and Tassman is an outsider, though he apparently attends church with is family) and I have advised him to seek out some help with regard to the matter of learning how to pray.
Of course, in our day and age we are better understanding ourselves and to be perfectly straight with you, the Bible does not really present us with a detailed scientific examination of the inner function of brain chemistry, nor is it a text book for modern psychiatry or neuro-science, but rather it is a declaration (if one includes the New Testament) of the completeness that has been given in Christ Jesus.
Now on to a few more phrases:
‘every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin.’
This is a very forceful statement and certainly doesn’t clearly explain the state of every person born into the world, from the majority of Christian creeds. A person born has not yet sinned and though the age when cognizance of morality is meant to begin varies.
Sure, I’ve chatted to a wide cross-section of Christians who hold a view similar to this one, but it’s certainly not one that is supported by a careful study of the Scriptures.
Let’s have a look at one more comment from Tassman’s declaration:
‘People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God.’
People (would that be before the age of cognizance of morality?) in that respect I think most would agree that he is describing what common sense teaches us and a fairly good understanding of the Christian sacred texts, that people gradually harden their hearts and God hardens the heart. I think if one is basing one’s understanding solely on a misreading of Martin Luther’s ‘Bondage of the Will’ and a very narrow or muddle headed view of Reformed doctrine one might think that all Calvinists think this way, but a careful reading of Dr. Gordon H. Clarke’s explanation of the Westminster Confession of Faith might grant one a better understanding of how the early protestants viewed this matter of the state of mankind.
In a mature adult, it is more likely that there isn’t really a bound will that cannot love God, but rather an ability to commit or serve ones own self or ideals with growing intensity, though misdirected because of the noetic effects of sin. That’s a mouthful. What we do have is something I found present in the early writings of John Bunyan, we have free agency or as Clarke calls it ‘natural psychology’ to do certain things and God uses that, but the idea of being ‘not by nature inclined’ is hardly an accurate view of either John Calvin, or Calvinism (though perhaps in some wacky version of it.)
This second last stanza, seems okay:
‘Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)’
Obviously, this bloke doesn’t really understand that most protestants who are believers in the saving faith (by the grace of God) has not really understood that their is most definitely the ‘sensus divinitas’ which sets us to ‘feeling towards God’ The boundaries set by God, and certainly the inner sensus divinitas coupled with the noetic effects of sin, which are a shadow of the mind of Christ or an ‘original conscience’ are there. I know that it might be hard for him to understand but the words ‘not that every person is as evil as possible’ has a very wide application.
One final jab:
‘This doctrine is borrowed from Augustine who was a member of a Manichaean sect in his youth”. ‘
Borrowed from Augustine? It’s borrowed from Calvin, who studied Augustine and what he’s doing is attacking his own very religious background and not really seeing that even protestant and Calvin’s thinking was progressive and open and would most certainly have taken all the modern advances in science and logic into consideration and certainly does.
Plantinga, Sudduth and Craig being excellent examples of this.
Christian Philosophy is a growing thing and though I don’t ascribe to it’s volume anymore, I think this bloke should be corrected.
NO?
