Calvinism = anti-Biblical?? Vance book says so

[rhutchin]

Vance argues, ". . . in keeping with the true nature of how the Calvinists define Total Depravity, none of their proof texts mention man's depravity at all but rather his supposed inability."
[I think "none" is singular even in that context above, so "mentions" is the correct choice. Hmmm?]
I wasn't able to follow my plan discussed last time of checking the proof verses in the WCF. For one thing, Vance didn't mention the WCF in the section titled, "Proof Texts." All I did was to check a few verses there after struggling to follow his argument. So far Vance seems to be correct, but I still have this feeling of frustration of not really understanding him.

I am having the same problem. I think he is cherry picking his Calvinist sources to make his points (particularly taking Pink out of context when I checked).

He uses the same Scriptures as the Calvinists and then just says that they only prove depravity and not inability. Well, if people can do no good and the gospel is foolishness to them (to name a few qualities of the depraved), how does that still allow an ability to accept salvation? Vance flippantly, I think, just says that they don't imply inability, and I think, he does this just because he doesn't want to believe that all these verses actually point to that conclusion. Vance is hard core free willer and nothing will dissuade him of the theology of free will.

[Augustine2004]

I am having the same problem. I think he is cherry picking his Calvinist sources to make his points

Vance quotes Pink often, usually agreeing with him. Otherwise, Vance quotes a wide variety and claims that more than once.

(particularly taking Pink out of context when I checked)

I am unable to verify that, not having Pink's writings to hand. Perhaps later.

He uses the same Scriptures as the Calvinists and then just says that they only prove depravity and not inability.

No, that can't be. Vance is attacking the Calvinists, saying that their proof texts do not support the notion of Total Depravity. Vance says that they much more support the notion of inability to redeem oneself or to transform oneself on one's own so that one can be in heaven. I think Vance is saying that one can't deduce depravity from inability. I am now of the mind that the argument that if people are unable then they are depraved . . . while that may not be 100% formal deductive logic, it is nevertheless sound common sense. But actually this is not important, because the point is we are unable. A child may be good, but he is not able to do things many adults can.

Vance flippantly, I think, just says that they don't imply inability,

I was thinking that Vance meant to show that the proof texts that Calvinists used to establish the doctrine of Total Depravity actually don't. Rather, they can be used to establish the doctrine of Total Inability.

and I think, he does this just because he doesn't want to believe that all these verses actually point to that conclusion. Vance is hard core free willer and nothing will dissuade him of the theology of free will.

Again, I don't think the issue of free will is an important issue. A man may strongly desire to be the world's strongest man, but he is not able to build the necessary strength because he is too old.
ETA: Vance is to be commended for bringing up the issue of inability.

[rhutchin]

Vance is attacking the Calvinists, saying that their proof texts do not support the notion of Total Depravity. Vance says that they much more support the notion of inability to redeem oneself or to transform oneself on one's own so that one can be in heaven.

I am not sure of this. Vance does not buy into the Calvinist/Arminian idea of Total Depravity and thus does not see the need for “grace” to enable a person to accept salvation. I see Vance arguing that God need only provide reasonable people with the opportunity to be saved and then their “conscience” is sufficient to sort out what the person should do.

I think Vance is saying that one can't deduce depravity from inability.

I think Vance is saying that one can't deduce inability from depravity. Vance buys into depravity but does not buy into inability as a result of that depravity. Depravity describes man’s nature to Vance but he sees the conscience being separate from the nature and not ruled by nature.

I was thinking that Vance meant to show that the proof texts that Calvinists used to establish the doctrine of Total Depravity actually don't. Rather, they can be used to establish the doctrine of Total Inability.

I understand Vance to be arguing that the proof texts, while establishing depravity, do not establish inability.

ETA: Vance is to be commended for bringing up the issue of inability.

Why commended? Vance writes as if Calvinists keep inability a big secret. Calvinists are pretty open about this – hence the need for saving grace. Vance creates a straw man that does not exist.

[Augustine2004]

I am not sure of this. Vance does not buy into the Calvinist/Arminian idea of Total Depravity and thus does not see the need for “grace” to enable a person to accept salvation. I see Vance arguing that God need only provide reasonable people with the opportunity to be saved and then their “conscience” is sufficient to sort out what the person should do.

I have to correct myself. Some proof texts may be interpreted as evidence for depravity (see below). Vance does argue that nobody disputes that we all are depraved. Thus, he does accept to some extent the doctrine of Total Depravity. Addition: Below, you actually say, "Vance buys into depravity . . ." (And why not consider inability as some species of depravity [again, see below]?)

I am sorry I so badly misstated things. A better version might be, "Vance attacks the Calvinists for meaning something different from Total Depravity, namely inability.

I think Vance is saying that one can't deduce inability from depravity. Vance buys into depravity but does not buy into inability as a result of that depravity. Depravity describes man’s nature to Vance but he sees the conscience being separate from the nature and not ruled by nature.

On page 187 is the section headlined Total Inability, which begins, "When a Calvinist says Total Depravity, what he really means is Total Inability, which has nothing to do with Total Depravity at all, but is rather the supposed result of it." Later on the same page is this comment on Pink's explanation: "So the inability had nothing to do with man's depravity and need of a savior at all, but rather concerned man's inability to do what he is time after time commanded by God to do: [here I substitute the New Century Version for the KJV]

He said,"The right time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. Change your heart and lives and believe the Good News!" Mark 1:15

In the past, people did not understand God, and he ignored this. But now, God tells all people in the world to change their hearts and lives. Acts 17:30

Calvinists say that inability is part of man's depravity. To be sure, one can't always infer the whole from any given lesser part of it. But consider deducing inability from depravity. It seems reasonable to define inability and depravity so that the former is part of the latter. By definition, inability would be inferrable from depravity. However, Vance seems to have definitions of inability and depravity such that by those definitions these qualities are entirely separate. Inability cannot be inferred from depravity and vice versa. I would suggest that we ignore that definitional difference as not worth considering any more than keeping in mind.

I understand Vance to be arguing that the proof texts, while establishing depravity, do not establish inability.

On page 223 is this sentence: "And in keeping with the true nature of how the Calvinists define Total Depravity, none of the proof texts mention man's depravity at all but rather his supposed inability." I am uncertain what Vance had in mind when he wrote "supposed" in that sentence. But clearly he has those definitions so that "inability" and "depraved" have meanings that exclude one another. I would suggest that, except when we need to be specific, we would, contra Vance, say that man's inability is part of his depraved nature, and so read those proof texts as showing his depraved nature after all.

But Vance does get specific.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born again, he cannot be in God's kingdom."

I do not know if the New Century Version is accurate. The KJV differs: ". . . except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Vance actually commented on the verb "see," as if he thought that was the correct translation. Readers, please weigh in, I am not an expert in translating the Bible. I am ending this post here anyway, this close to bedtime.

[Pentecost]

I'm a lurker, but I like that you used NCV

[rhutchin]

I have to correct myself. Some proof texts may be interpreted as evidence for depravity (see below). Vance does argue that nobody disputes that we all are depraved. Thus, he does accept to some extent the doctrine of Total Depravity. Addition: Below, you actually say, "Vance buys into depravity . . ." (And why not consider inability as some species of depravity [again, see below]?)

I am sorry I so badly misstated things. A better version might be, "Vance attacks the Calvinists for meaning something different from Total Depravity, namely inability.

My problem with Vance on this point is not that he disputes the Calvinist linkage between depravity and inability, but that he dismisses that linkage without really explaining why. If it is true that the heart is desperately wicked (per Jeremiah), and "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God," (per Paul), then I think it proper to ask how such a person would be able to reasonably consider the claims of Christ, such claims as are a stumbling bock to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. Vance needs to explain how the Calvinists have so misconstrued the import of these and so many other statements in the Scriptures describing the lost. I found Vance's argument disappointing but I agree that he (or anyone else) must deny/undo inability if he is to logically oppose Calvinist theology.

[Augustine2004]

I'm a lurker, but I like that you used NCV

Someone told me that was grade-school reading level. Mind explaining why you like NCV, especially for use in exegesis of the verses that Vance quotes?

[Augustine2004]

I think I will list many verses that Vance quotes in Chapter 6 Total Depravity plus their (brief) context, before moving on to Chapter 7.

In section Total Inability
" . . . man's inability to do what he is time after time commanded by God to do:...(Mark 1:15) (Acts 17:30)

In The Depravity of Man
"There is obviously a tremendous difference between the original creation [Gen 1:31] and the world as it now exists [1 John 5:19]."

[Following are verses that describe Man's original condition, what Adam and Eve were ere their fall] Ecc. 7:29, Gen 1:26, Psa. 8:5, Rev 4:11 (God was to be pleased by Man's dominion of the earth?)

"The Bible states that it is because of Adam's willful sin (1 Tim. 2:14)) that man is in the state he is in:" Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19.

"In fact, the unsaved man is not only said to be in Adam's image (1 Cor. 15:49), but in Adam (1 Cor. 15:22)."

[There are too many verses, let me skip to the last page of the section] Mat. 19:25 To answer the question in that verse, Vance insists that there are two alternatives: the Bible and TULIP Calvinism. Acts 16:30-31 [supposed to be for the Bible] and Lam. 3:26 [for the Calvinist side]. Vance insists, "That is the difference between the Bible and Calvinism."

[I wonder if Vance has not proven that Man does have free will to decide to follow our Lord. The problem of free will is simply pushed down one level of explanation. But let's go on to the next section Salvation and the Will.]

[Vance accuses the Calvinist of basing the doctrine of Total Depravity on the assumption that a person who is spiritually dead cannot of his own free will accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ (page 201).

Oops, it turns out I didn't really read the present section. Let's leave that to next time. But I think rhutchin is correct Vance is a freewiller. There seem to be some limits, though.

[rhutchin]

In section Total Inability
" . . . man's inability to do what he is time after time commanded by God to do:...(Mark 1:15) (Acts 17:30)

This is one of (if not, the) primary philosophical issues raised by free willers in opposition to the Calvinism/Arminianism Total Depravity = Total Inability. The argument is further advanced by questioning how God can condemn a person to eternal punishment for something he cannot do (notice the smooth change in focus from the person’s ability to sin and accountability for his sin to his inability to atone for his sin).

Vance does not address the issue of inability: How can the Calvinist/Arminian conclusion that one who is dead in sin, blinded by Satan, having a desperate wicked heart, seeing the gospel as foolishness, etc is unable to accept Christ other then through the enabling power given to the person by God be erroneous? We don’t know how Vance concludes that this is wrong because he doesn’t really tell us. He just says that people are better than that. If he had an argument, he would have presented it because this guy is thorough.

…Vance insists that there are two alternatives: the Bible and TULIP Calvinism. Acts 16:30-31 [supposed to be for the Bible] and Lam. 3:26 [for the Calvinist side]. Vance insists, "That is the difference between the Bible and Calvinism."

Actually, the difference is between Vance’s understanding of the Bible and the Calvinist/Arminian understanding of the Bible. .

[Vance accuses the Calvinist of basing the doctrine of Total Depravity on the assumption that a person who is spiritually dead cannot of his own free will accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ (page 201).

I would say, “conclusion,” rather than “assumption.”

Vance writes: “As we have seen, the problem with Calvinism is not what it teaches about the depravity of man but rather what it teaches about the result of this depravity…The denial that man has the free will to repent and believe the gospel is part of the broader teaching that man, because of his depravity, has the inability to do anything good at all:”

Vance understands the issue; he just doesn’t address it. He offers an opposing view but his argument is basically, I like my understanding of Scripture better than the Calvinist understanding even though I can’t really argue against the Calvinist understanding but I'm sticking to my free will guns no matter what.

[Pentecost]

NCV is grade school level, I like that it was used just because I never see people use it and it is what I use personally. It is not something I would choose for exesis however, it is not an 'accurate' translation, just an easy to understand one.

[Phat8594]

Someone told me that was grade-school reading level. Mind explaining why you like NCV, especially for use in exegesis of the verses that Vance quotes?

The NCV is a fine translation (although I would prefer the NIV when looking at functional equivalent translations).


No one should use just one translation when doing exegesis. Rather, one should preferably use at least one Formal Equivalent and one Functional Equivalent.

[Phat8594]

NCV is grade school level, I like that it was used just because I never see people use it and it is what I use personally. It is not something I would choose for exesis however, it is not an 'accurate' translation, just an easy to understand one.

What makes you think it is not accurate?

[Pentecost]

God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NCV)

As opposed to a more common translation that says that

"God so loved the world..."

As can be found from KJV to NIV. One indicates the way that God loves the world, the other indicates the amount He loves the world. It is only in translations whose stated goals are simplicity e.g. NCV and The Message that you will see the second. I personally think it is big enough of a divergence that you would want to double check if you came across what seems to be odd exesis. I don't mean to say this discredits the version, only that care should be taken.

[Augustine2004]

Please permit me to change my mind regarding Bible quotations in the section Depravity and The Will.

To rebut the Calvinist point that after one's salvation he becomes good, Vance quoted Romans 7:15-20 and Gal. 5:17. Vance then said in conclusion,"So even the "elect" have "inability." I certainly concede the point that nobody ever becomes perfect until one is dead or on the point of dying. Still it seems to me we should take that conclusion with a grain of salt.

Mankind acquired Conscience when Adam and Eve fell, Vance said, pointing out the contrast between Genesis 2:25 and 3:7.

Vance argued on the basis of Romans 2:14-15 and other verses including Romans 2:10 and Luke 6:33 that a sinner does have "ability" sometimes. Especially notable, most people have consciences, even those who have never gotten the Good News.

The section concludes with these words: " . . . the unregenerate man does not sin because he has the inability to do any good, he sins because he yields to his depraved nature and willfully choses to do so." Let me point out that "inability to do good" does not necessarily mean "always doing evil." It depends on exactly what is meant by "inability to do good."

Vance accuses the Calvinist of being vague and equivocal, but he doesn't offer careful, thorough, exhaustive definitions.

Now, as promised, the next section: Salvation and The Will.

Vance makes a claim about a frequent Calvinist parry against dissent from Luther's thesis, "With regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation [ I was typing slavation! Oh, what does that mean!?] and damnation, [man] has no 'free-will.'" Vance says that the Calvinist often accuses the dissenter of denying salvation by grace.

The Calvinist, according to Vance, claims John 1:13 and Romans 9:16 as pillars that support the idea that man cannot accept Jesus Christ of his own free will. Vance correctly points out that John is talking about the source or cause of the new birth. Vance next points out the context (John 1:10-12) especially the 12th verse: But to all who did accept [Jesus Christ] and believe in him he gave the right to become children of God (NCV). Alas, Vance is obscure with his conclusion: "The new birth is God's work, but the receiving of Christ is man's." Man's work? I doubt Vance meant to imply salvation by works. Maybe he needs to think things through some more.


Time for bed. About offering your opinions or points, let not fear overcome you. And bear in mind the wise words from a philosopher who hails from a place far, far away in the future, Yoda:

Do it. There is no try.

[Pentecost]

Star Wars was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away...[/nitpick]

What I didn't notice previously is that Vance is the one using NCV not Augustine. Hmm, I misunderstood before. Vance is seeming less credible to me if he based an entire book using that translation, which as I mentioned is the version I personally use, but still!

Augustine did Vance mention in he foreword or anywhere why he chose NCV?