by Sam Waldron | Oct 28, 2015 | Reformed Theology
I. Misunderstandings related to Total Depravity
(3) Total depravity means that men are as bad as they can be!
Once more this is not mainline Reformed teaching. While it is true that men can do no spiritual or saving good, the Reformed tradition has recognized that unconverted men can and do perform what is often called acts of civil righteousness. It was better that Ahab outwardly responded to Elijah’s rebuke than if he had not, but it did not mean that Ahab had truly repented or truly done anything spiritually good. Here is the language of 1 Kings 21:27-29: “It came about when Ahab heard these words, that he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and fasted, and he lay in sackcloth and went about despondently. 28 Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 “Do you see how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days, but I will bring the evil upon his house in his son’s days.”” Thus, I agree with E. H. Palmer who in his book on the five points of Calvinism said that, while men are not as bad as they can be, they are as bad off as they can be. Total depravity is not absolute depravity!
(4) Total inability means that, even though men want to be saved, they cannot be saved or come to Christ!
Once more this is a total misunderstanding of the doctrines of total depravity and total inability. May I quote the Confession once more?
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Total inability absolutely does not mean that men want to be saved, but they just cannot be because they are totally depraved. Total inability consists in an indisposition of the will to any spiritual good. It means that men are “averse” to good. It means that “the cannot’s” of John 6 are a way of describing “the will not” of John 5:40: “and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” Total inability means that nobody really wants to be saved apart from the grace of God working in their hearts.
The Fifth and Sixth Misunderstandings
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 26, 2015 | Reformed Theology
I. Misunderstandings related to Total Depravity
(2) Calvinists do not believe in human responsibility!
This assertion is also a slander on authentic Calvinism. Calvinists not only believe that men have a natural liberty, but they also agree that men are responsible for their actions because of that natural liberty.
The reason why Arminians claim that Calvinists deny human responsibility is that they have adopted what amounts to a Pelagian premise into their theology. They believe that responsibility assumes ability. The notion that responsibility for doing something assumes ability to do something is not true—if you are talking about moral ability. The Bible in many places teaches that men cannot come to Christ, but it still holds them responsible to do so.
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
I am in agreement with the great Calvinists Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller who made a distinction between natural and moral ability. I think in making this distinction they are simply enlarging on what the Confession already teaches. Human responsibility assumes natural ability, but it does not assume moral ability. God does not tell us to run one minute miles. He does tell us to do things which He has given us the natural ability to do. We are able to love and trust and be sorry. We have the natural ability to do such things. But we do not have the moral ability to love and trust and be sorry about the right things. Thus, God tells us to do things that, because of sin, we do not have the moral ability to do. John 5:40 rebukes the Jews precisely for not coming to Christ for salvation: “and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”
The Third and Fourth Misunderstandings
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 23, 2015 | Reformed Theology
I have arranged my treatment of 21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism in the order of
T-U-L-I-P.
I.Misunderstandings related to Total Depravity
The first of the five points of Calvinism is total depravity. This point includes the idea of total inability which (to quote 9:3 of the 1689 Baptist Confession) is the idea that “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”
A number of misunderstandings of this point must be refuted. The first is this
(1)Calvinists do not believe in free will!
It certainly is true that Calvinists do not believe in what most people call (usually with a great deal of confusion) free will. Sometimes I have heard respectable Calvinists say that they believe in free agency rather than free will. As for myself and many other Calvinists, we prefer to say that we believe in free will properly defined. What is a proper and biblical definition of free will? It is the one given in the 1689 Baptist Confession in chapter 9, paragraph 1: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.” Here free will is defined as the power of acting upon choice. This is the natural liberty of the human. Such a view of free will is suggested by a number of texts:
Matthew 17:12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished (willed). So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
As I implied above, mankind still possesses this natural liberty or ‘free will.’ This is implied by an analysis of the outline of Chapter 9 of the Confession. It may be outlined as follows:
I.The Definition of Human Freedom, par. 1
II.The States of Human Freedom, par. 2-5
A.Free will in the State of Innocency, par. 2
B.Free Will in the State of Sin, par. 3
C.Free Will in the State of Grace, par. 4
D.Free Will in the State of Glory, par. 5
The force of this outline is that paragraphs 2-5, including and especially paragraph 3, do not function as a negation of the definition of human freedom given in paragraph 1. All of these paragraphs simply tell us the four states in which the natural liberty or free will of man may exist.
But, of course, mankind does not in the state of sin possess the spiritual or moral liberty to use his “free will” to choose what is right. His will is tied to his sinful nature so that he cannot will any spiritual good. Thus, Jesus teaches in Matthew 7:17-18: “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” All this means that I agree with Walt Chantry that man’s will is free, yet bound. So it is not true to say that Calvinists do not believe in free will.
My intention in this blog is not to condemn all denunciations of free will in our preaching. We often assume, properly it seems to me, an Arminian definition of free will in such legitimate denunciations. I am saying that when it comes to calm and careful theological discussion that it is better to affirm that we believe in free will properly defined. This will give us the better basis for affirming, as I will argue in my next post, that we do believe in human responsibility.
The Second Misunderstanding
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 21, 2015 | Reformed Theology
In my first post I identified three sources of misunderstanding with regard to Calvinism: Arminian Misrepresentation, Immature Reaction, and Hyper-Calvinist Presumption. This led me in my message at RP 15 to reflect by way of a second point of introduction on …
The Solution to These Misunderstandings
The root of each of these sources of misunderstanding is, I think, the same. It is rationalism. By that I mean the exaltation of human reason over the teaching of the Word of God. It is, of course, true that human reason is created by God and is a necessary tool in the interpretation of the Bible. This is undeniable. I concur with the Westminster Confession when it says:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture …
But we must never forget that our reason is limited in two respects. It is both finite and fallen. We must be, therefore, modest and careful in the deductions which we draw from Scripture, guarding always against allowing our human reason to purge from Scripture things which seem contradictory to our reason. We must be prepared, to put this in other words, to allow the divine wisdom of Scripture to correct our human wisdom and reason. We must not jump quickly to unnatural and forced interpretations to remove from Scripture things which are offensive to our reason.
My third point of introduction was …
The Substantiation of These Misunderstandings
The title of 21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism assumes that we have some authority for what historical Calvinism or Reformed thinking is. Only on the basis of some authoritative statement of Calvinism can I show or substantiate that certain views are misunderstandings of its teaching. In my message at RP 15 I used two such authoritative statements of Calvinism.
First, I will use the historic Calvinistic Baptist Confession of Faith, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It is the confession that can claim more than any other to have shaped Reformed and Particular Baptist thought. It has the further advantage of being a revision of the Westminster Confession, the classic Reformation confession, and echoing most of its language and doctrinal sentiments.
Second, I will use the Canons of Dort. The Canons of Dort were the first, creedal, and systematic exposition of the doctrines of grace in the history of the church and were affirmed by an international synod of Reformed churches and theologians in 1618-19. I think these two documents are indisputably authoritative, historical affirmations of Calvinism.
My fourth point of introduction was …
The Sequence of These Misunderstandings
I thought it best to arrange the various misunderstandings of Calvinism in the order in which the doctrines of grace are normally treated. That is, the order of the acronym T-U-L-I-P. Thus, I will treat the various misunderstandings in the order of the Five Points of Calvinism.
The First Misunderstanding
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 19, 2015 | Reformed Theology, Uncategorized
Recently, I had the privilege of speaking at the Reformation Preaching 2015 Conference. I was given the delicious, but in some ways difficult topic: Misunderstandings of Reformed Thinking. After some thought and seeking counsel, I entitled this message: 21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism.
There are a few things beside the native darkness and pride of the human heart that are a greater danger to the doctrines of grace than the widespread misunderstandings of those doctrines and their implications. The best solution to these misunderstandings is a study of the Reformed tradition itself and its clear statements about what the Bible does, and does not, teach regarding the doctrines of grace.
Before I addressed this important subject, I gave the conference four points of introduction. The first of those is the subject of this first post on those 21 misconceptions of Calvinism.
The Sources of These Misunderstandings
I distinguished three sources of misconceptions about Calvinism
The first was Arminian Misrepresentation. It is unquestionable that both today and in the past history of the church, Arminians have constantly repeated misrepresentations of the doctrines of grace. While these misrepresentations may have seemed to them the necessary implications of the views of their Calvinist opponents, they were made in many cases in spite of the clearest denials by the Reformed. It is unfair for anyone to charge their opponents with holding views that they deny even though they seem to be the logical implications of their positions. It is fair to point out that their views do lead to such implications. It is not fair to affirm that they hold or believe such implications when they explicitly deny them.
The second was Immature Reaction. Another source of various misunderstandings of the doctrines of grace comes from the over-reaction of immature Calvinists. In their new found vision of the absolute sovereignty of God and newly acquired revulsion to the widespread ignorance and denial of God’s sovereignty by professing Christians, it is easy for neophyte Calvinists to make all sorts of extremist statements and adopt all sorts of imbalanced views that time and calm consideration will show are filled with ill-considered assertions and careless implications. These statements are not the deliberate misrepresentations of Arminians or the calculated presumption of Hyper-Calvinists, but the enthusiastic overstatements of “Young Turks” or “Cage-stage” Calvinists.
The third was Hyper-Calvinist Presumption. But another and dangerous source of misunderstandings about Calvinism is the historical stream of real Hyper-Calvinism which developed in the centuries following the Reformation. Yes, there really is such a thing as Hyper-Calvinism! Of course, Hyper-Calvinism is not five point Calvinism. That is just Calvinism. Granted such Hyper-Calvinism scarcely exists anywhere any more. But its writings and its representatives do exist and pose a constant and, I fear, growing temptation to young, imbalanced Calvinists ready to embrace anything that appears to exalt a sovereign God. I warn you, then, that everything is not gold that glitters. Be careful of those who will tell you that the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, the doctrine of common grace, and duty-faith are Arminianism.
Part two
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
