Maybe you've heard of it. "Calvinism" is often thought of in terms of "TULIP," an acronym designed to be a memory tool to explain the "Five Points of Calvinism" (which, actually, weren't in play when Calvin was alive). I have always disliked the acronym (not the doctrines -- the acronym) because they are so misleading.
Take, for instance, the "T" of TULIP -- Total Depravity. What is that? Well, clearly, from the term, we understand that all human beings are as bad as they can possibly be. I mean, "total," right? Well, no. Every time I hear a proponent make the argument, they say the opposite: "That doesn't mean we're as bad as we can possibly be." So, if the term doesn't match the point, why use it? What is the point? According to Scripture, Natural Man is born in sin. So, how bad is it? "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). Genesis described people as "only evil continually" (Gen 6:5) before the Flood and says after, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). The Psalms say things like "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5) and "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). In the New Testament, it says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2) and "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). We read, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4) and "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). Does all of this require that all human beings are as bad as they can possibly be? Not at all. Don't worry! We can all get much worse.
"Total Depravity" doesn't really express the notion. Biblically, human beings are natural-born sinners. We cannot fail to sin. We are naturally hostile to God, spiritually dead, sinners from our mothers' wombs. We all fail to do good in our natural state. One writer wrote, "There's a worm in everything." That's the idea. Sin touches every part of the natural human being, making him a sinner and, worse, actually hostile to God. So, perhaps "Total Depravity" doesn't get it across right. I need a better term, but I'd have to jettison Scripture if I wanted to argue that we're not all that bad.
15 comments:
Is this not true for most memory acronyms? They are helpful for those that learned the concepts before the acronym, but can be confusing to those that hear the acronym before learning the concepts. I think, for those "in the know" TULIP is a useful tool. But from the outside, it is distorted and maligned. As a memory tool, is it not useful? When you think of "Total Depravity", do you think we are as bad as we can be? I understand being tired of having to correct people of their incorrect understanding of an extremely short summation of a very complex theological system, but are we not called to correct error? If you came up with a different memory tool, would it not fall into the same problem as TULIP as language drifts?
I agree with what you said about TULIP. It's a helpful memory tool, but only skims the surface. The way I heard Total Depravity explained was that it was making the point that the totality of creation was affected by sin. Obviously, as soon as we think people couldn't be that depraved, someone does something worse. I regularly hear people who intentionally misrepresent Total Depravity, while simultaneously arguing that all people are intrinsically good. That "minor sins" aren't really a big deal. Or that we're born perfectly free from even the hint of sin. It's almost like people want to totally ignore scripture intentionally in favor of constructing their own theology that makes them the star.
I have heard too many "Christians" tell me that people aren't that bad. They've told me that people can live life without sin. They tell me that sin isn't that bad. They call themselves "Christians." And they reason from Man to God, from "Here's what I believe" to "Thus, Scripture must mean that, too." There is so much error to address, I get tired of addressing error caused by memory tools that are intended to address the error.
I've heard that as well. It usually goes something like, "We're all born free from sin, therefore it is possible that someone could live a sin free life. Certainly small children are free from sin until some unknown age. But since most of us only commit a few "minor sins", it's unreasonable to think that god would really punish us excessively for a few "minor sins".". It's obviously, as you say, reasoning from man to god and imposing mans perspective on God.
Obviously many Christian terms are shorthand ways to explain a more complex thought. The problem is when people misinterpret the shorthand into something else entirely, then argue with their straw man. For those with open minds, the questions raised by TULIP can lead to great discussions.
Is the memory tool for those that don't believe or understand the thing the tool is shorthanding? And, even without the tool, we're going to constantly be correcting people about the depth of depravity in humanity. If Calvin's followers never created the acronym and left the doctrines of grace in their full form, we would still be correcting the error that sin isn't that bad or people aren't that sinful.
Just a note, David. I understand that the first use of "TULIP" occurred in 1905. Makes one wonder what took so long. I use it as a private memory tool which I then translate into more accurate ideas to express. I guess, as far as that goes, it's okay.
I mostly use it as a private memory tool also, although I will use it in conversations like this where I have a degree of confidence that the terms are understood by all.
I think it would be a mistake to use the acronym as shorthand with someone who doesn't understand what the 5 points are in at least some detail. It seems like a recipe for misunderstanding.
With Spring officially arriving next week, it makes sense that you would “tiptoe through the TULIPs” a bit :). I concur with the general consensus that the acrostic TULIP is helpful--but only to a degree. In the book “What is Reformed Theology?” by R.C. Sproul, he writes that “total depravity” is incorrectly thought of as “utter depravity,” while he feels that the doctrine is more properly worded as “radical corruption.” (Puritan Thomas Boston called it “entire depravity.”) Sproul writes, “We simply are unable to live without sinning. We sin out of a kind of moral necessity because we act according to our fallen nature.” Sproul also shares Augustine’s view of “human ability” in a chart that I have found helpful:
Pre-Fall Man: able to sin, able to not sin
Post-Fall Man: able to sin, unable to not sin (or “bound to sin”)
Regenerated Man: able to sin, able to not sin
Glorified Man: able to not sin, unable to sin
I find it encouraging to consider that through the Holy Spirit’s regeneration, I am able to enjoy a relationship with God more like that of Adam & Eve rather than as the lost sinner--and God’s enemy--I was before being born again. The best is still to come, of course!
I agree that misunderstanding the doctrine of Man’s Depravity leads to many incorrect views about man’s base sinfulness, natural inclinations, etc.--in opposition to clear biblical teaching. One thing that is behind the “people are basically good” notion, I think, is the emphasis in today’s culture to have “healthy self-esteem”--i.e. “think good thoughts,” “be hopeful about your future,” “rise above your circumstances,” “love yourself,” “practice self-care,” and other self-oriented encouragements. (We hear these things a lot especially related to guiding young people.) “People are basically good” just seems like positive, healthy attitudes to have about life here on earth. This thinking can also stem from a kindhearted desire to encourage and/or think highly of others, i.e. “look for the good in others,” “be a blessing,” “cheer on your loved ones,” “support your coworkers,” etc. All of these notions support the “your best life now”-oriented mindset of our society but don’t align with a biblical view of our true nature and condition.
Related to this wrong idea of man’s true nature is the notion that most people are guilty of only “minor sins” (as Craig mentions). This idea is promoted in the erroneous Catholic Church doctrine of “venial” vs. “mortal” sins--a teaching that certain sins (the “little ones”) will not condemn one to hell but others (the “big ones”) will. This echoes Satan’s words to Eve, “You will not surely die” [for eating a piece of fruit] (Gen. 3:4)--in blatant contradiction to God’s word to the contrary. This RCC dogma is what encourages many Catholics, specifically, to think of themselves as “good people” (if they commit only “venial” sins)--rather than at enmity with God--and therefore not deserving of eternal damnation or in need of a Savior, the new birth, etc. Failure to recognize that committing just one “little” sin makes us guilty of them all (James 2:9-10) keeps many people ignorant of their true condition.
I'm a little confused. I didn't offer speculation in this post; I offered Scripture. I wrote out what the Bible says about the nature of natural man. But Dan is really miffed at my "unbiblical" and ungracious representation of humans ... which I simply read from the Bible. How depraved is the natural man? I thought I made it abundantly clear from the texts. Did anyone else think I was vague or unclear or offering mere opinion?
Stan, you asked: “Did anyone else think I was vague or unclear or offering mere opinion?” I have read your posts daily for a decade and always find that they lead me to think biblically. I wouldn’t ever describe your writing as “vague” or “unclear” (or I probably would not read here, since I appreciate good writing skills). Additionally, it is always easy to tell when you are “offering mere opinion,” from the clear language you might use along the lines of “this is just me,” etc. Your writing today was clear enough for all of us regular readers/commenters to say quite a bit in response--without asking for clarification or offering any pushback. We all seemed familiar enough with the biblical doctrine you laid out to follow you quite well, I would say, and to offer our concurrence based on our own knowledge of Scripture. Your “representation of humans” was completely biblical and not at all ungracious--just true. I can’t imagine one having an issue with your post today--unless it’s someone for whom “the truth hurts.”
Clearly you were offering a "mere opinion". It just happens to be the clearly presented opinion of God. I know of no positive verses about the moral ability of natural man. It's almost like you wrote that in order to conclude that man is basically good, you have to start with that premise and reinterpret Scripture to align with that premise.
There was a time when I balked at the suggestion "we are all sinners", because like too many, I not only sought to do good and to be regarded as one who did, I also could rationalize anything to suit my purposes and thus I was not a sinner.
Ah, youth!
But I've grown since then and better understand. I read Scripture for understanding, not for finding loopholes which serves MY purpose rather than His. There's very little "speculation" required despite occasions when it can be a pleasant or edifying exercise.
But being accused of speculation when simply repeating what Scripture unambiguously states...as if doing so reflects some kind of subjectivity when it contradicts another's personal preference based not on evidence, but what's personally satisfying...is foolishness. What's most disturbing is the lack of a truly reasoned alternative understanding backed by Scripture.
Some simply put their alleged and laughably labeled "God-given reasoning" above Scripture. "What do I wish was true?" is the starting point of such people, and then they "reason" their way into corruptions and perversions of plainly stated, unambiguous teaching, and then demand one proves "Stop" on that red octagonal sign at intersections means "Stop".
Stan,
How dare you offer scripture with little or no commentary as scripture or as God's word. What are you thinking. Like with so many situations, all Dan would have to do is provide scripture that counters the scripture you've offered, or provide an interpretation (consistent with scripture) that demonstrates that the scripture you quoted actually means something entirely different.
He won't, because he's never done so, likely because he knows that he can't. So, instead he'll whine about something irrelevant and eventually run away.
As a P.S. to my comment above regarding the value placed on “positive thinking” in our culture over accepting God’s word on the true nature of the natural man: there is an article related to this very topic linked to at Tim Challies’ website today (3/19/24). I love its title: “Truthful Thinking Is Greater Than Positive Thinking”--that’s positively true :).
Post a Comment