I did not write this article and do not know who did. I am posting this for discussion and if you disagree with it do not kill me. Calvinism’s first point speaks to the total depravity of man. Arminianism counters: although we are born as sinners, mankind is given “a divine spark” that enables us to respond positively to God. The Bible clearly teaches that mankind is not basically good, but rather in bondage to sin (Romans 6:6-20) and therefore we are all wretched sinners who truly don’t seek after God, making us worthy of death (Romans 3:10-12, 23 and Romans 6:23). There is no doubt that humans are fallen creatures, separated from God by our sin (Genesis 2:15-17, Genesis chapter 3, and Isaiah 59:2). But does this mean we are so depraved to the point of being unable to respond to God at all? Calvin’s definition of total depravity was in regard to mankind’s relationship toward a Holy God and not to be considered the same on a human level. His view states that mankind is not totally evil, because we can temporarily do good on a human level, “that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8). Concupiscence means a bent desire toward the forbidden, most specifically in the area of lust. Calvin’s definition was just another way of expressing “original sin” (Psalm 51:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Although, we do not inherit anyone's sin (Ezekiel 18:20), we do sin after being tempted and then carried away, enticed by our own lusts (James 1:13-15). The unwillingness of the humanist in mankind to acknowledge his crime of sin and its destructive consequences is why people most readily blame God for bad things when they happen. Only the one who accepts their responsibility for their sin under the conviction of the Holy Spirit has the hope of repenting to receive God’s gracious gift of forgiveness. However, Calvin extended the Bible’s definition of our corrupt nature beyond the context, to say we have no ability to respond at all to God of our own free will. Romans 1:18-32 is often used as the proof text for Calvin’s claim of total depravity. Yet, neither this passage, nor any other passage in the Bible, ever actually defines a human inability to respond to God. Romans chapter one is speaking about human accountability through the knowledge of God through His creation, to point out that all humanity is without an excuse when God’s judgment comes. The idea that humans have no ability to freely choose means that God would have to force Himself upon us, which would bring His righteousness seriously into question, as it would be selective and deny our true free will. Also, human accountability and judgment of sin for those condemned to an eternity in Hell would add to the case for questioning God’s righteousness, if indeed we never really had a choice to decide our future, because we had been created without the ability to choose to respond. The true fallen human condition of our not seeking after and being separated from God (Romans 3:10-12 and Isaiah 59:2) should not be confused with and our ability “to respond to God via free will choice”, as if they were one and the same. This is where Calvin erred in his thinking and it is further dispelled when we look at other verses that point this out. “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil” (Job 1:1). “Then the LORD said to Noah, ‘Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time’.” - Genesis 7:1. Able chose to bring the proper offering before God and Cain did not (Genesis 4:2). Joshua chose to serve God and called upon Israel to do the same (Joshua 24:15). Unlike his son King Solomon, King David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Kings 11:4). Total depravity cannot be supported and is actually refuted by the whole of Scripture. This is why it is important to carefully study God’s authoritative word, allowing it to speak for itself, and be extremely cautious about being influenced by human opinions that often use partial Scripture to “tell us about what God meant”. Calvin described the human response to “God’s irresistible grace” as a mystery, because he planted his thinking incorrectly in the foundational idea that humans are unable to respond to God. Calvin thought that a human response would mean that we could take credit, or partial glory, for the act of receiving God’s gift of grace. However, the following should dispel Calvinists confusion about this and demonstrate that there is no mystery involved because God’s word tells us precisely how it all works. Most assuredly, God will receive all the glory for those who are saved, but it will be on account of the fact that we never really deserved to be offered such amazing grace to be forgiven by such a Holy Being in the first place. Choosing to receive (or respond to) His gift of grace is our choice and privilege, but never something we could realistically take any credit for. It would be like a murderer on death row, about to be executed, taking credit for an undeserved, last minute pardon from the Governor; it’s a logical absurdity. Just as the prisoner accepts the pardon, so do all the elect accept the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11), which is entirely to God’s credit. For the elect are urged by the conviction of the Holy Spirit to ask for and receive Christ’s pardon for their sin. God seeks us out and God does all the “work” (the transforming miracle) of saving (or birthing – John 3:3) the soul (John 1:12-13) from death into a new spiritual creature of life (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Furthermore, it is to God’s glory, because God wrote both His Law (Romans 2:15) and eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11) on the human heart, implanting within us the necessary understanding to respond to the Holy Spirit’s conviction. In other words, deep down we know right from wrong and that we will live forever. This dual fact of God’s implanted revelation makes all human beings fully accountable as well. Added understanding from God has been imparted as well, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged (a choice) the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures…” (Roman 1:18-32). To God be all the glory, indeed, but not on the basis of some unscriptural concept of “the ‘total’ depravity of mankind”. Now, if this was what the Arminians meant by the vaguely defined term “a divine spark”, then they would have been correct. So, God seeks out the human race and attempts to draw us to Himself through the conviction of His Spirit, at which point we choose to either respond to or reject His calling. Apparently, Calvin had trouble fully understanding the wondrous character of God, and over-emphasized (or perhaps “over-protected”) God’s sovereignty to the point of missing the balancing influence of God’s righteousness. How could God be righteous and just, to create humans totally depraved, with no hope at all (no real choice in the matter), and then select out only a small minority of them (Matthew 7:13-14) to be saved, while condemning the rest to an unspeakable eternal torment in Hell? Although the elect would be very grateful, there would always be the nagging questions of why me, why so few, how is it right for me to be in heaven and my mother to be in Hell, for example, if no real human choice was involved? But much worse than all this, it would make God out to be untrue, because it would directly contradict the statement by the Apostle Peter, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Any attempt to twist the actual meaning of “all” in this verse, to be only “a reference to the elect”, fails because a sovereign God choosing for us would beg the question: then for whom does God need to be patient, if He is the only one making the decision? If it’s God who sovereignly chooses who is saved for Heaven, and who is going to Hell, and we have no real choice in the matter, then God would become a twisted, psychotic liar by Peter’s statement. Additionally, the very definition of repentance means to change one’s mind and turn away from evil. Why are we called upon to repent if we truly have no power to choose in the first place? It’s a logical contradiction that Calvinists have no scriptural answer to resolve. God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; it is their willful rejection of God’s salvation makes them responsible, which explains why God actually is patient toward humans and truly doesn’t wish for any to perish.
