Most debates on the issue of total depravity revolve around Calvinists mistakenly thinking Arminians don’t hold to total depravity. But once we get past that (in fact both Calvinists and Arminians hold to total depravity), the discussion becomes quite interesting. Both Calvinists and Arminians must go beyond pat answers; there is no one Arminian model for the interplay between depravity and grace (or one Calvinist answer for that matter).
At this point, Calvinists can raise the interesting question of “forced grace” which was discussed
here. But I think there are other interesting questions at play once both sides understand that they agree about total depravity.
Anther interesting question that comes up is that of prevenient grace. In general, prevenient grace is grace that goes before faith. “Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved.” Some Calvinists will demand biblical evidence for prevenient grace; as if it’s a subterfuge sought to evade the issue of man’s depravity. But the same Calvinists often hold to “common grace”; the idea that God restrains all mankind from being as evil if as they could be, but falls short of enabling true faith and works pleasing to God. Arminians could equally demand biblical evidence of this abrupt boundary of God’s grace. Again, it appears to be a subterfuge to evade the fact that God is working on everyone.
The third question that rests just beyond a mutual understanding that man is total depraved: does God treat an unable man as able, or unable? For Arminians, man is unable to do good without grace, but since we live in a world flooded with God’s grace, for the most part God is interacting with people He has enabled to some degree. The rare exception is those who sear their conscience and harden there hearts, through repeated rejection and obstinacy. Sometimes God abandons such in their hardened state, rewarding iniquity with iniquity. But for the most part, He is working on everyone at some level, so we understand God to be dealing with enabled people.
But Calvinists say common grace stops short of enabling faith or works pleasing to God. God is dealing with man as unable to obey. And how does he interact with them. By saying things like:
Isaiah 5:4 "What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
For Arminians, this is a simple case of man rejecting God, despite enabling grace. But if one believes God’s grace falls short of enabling obedience, this is said to a debilitated man. How aquard; this seems downright disingenuous. But if the Calvinist can get comfortable with this idea, it opens up a new world of herminiutics. If God could say such a thing to a man unable to obey for want of what only His grace can supply, surly He can:
- Hate sin and yet predetermine the fall
- Offer salvation through Christ’s blood to those for whom Christ didn’t die
- Invite all to come, even if they can’t come
- Call his commands His will, even if God wills they should not be performed.
- Warn of falling away and loosing faith, even though faith cannot be lost.
Once you have that first example, the rest becomes easier and easier, and a whole new realm of scriptural interpretation becomes possible. But if God’s grace enables obedience, we never start down this path.
A fourth interesting aspect of discussion between Calvinists and Arminians who agree about depravity, is just how bad man can get. Arminians find man’s most despicable actions to be rejecting God’s gracewhen He offers salvation and enables faith. But this event doesn’t exist in Calvinist thought. For the Calvinist, man accepts Christ as soon as he possibly can, so there is no grace leading to salvation that man resists. So Arminians can charge the Calvinist view of just how bad man can be as deficient.
In any case, I hope you enjoy Whitby, and please do keep in mind that he’s arguing that grace is resistible, not denying total depravity.
Comments