Dispensationalism and TULIP – Total Depravity

Introduction

In this series of posts I will try to answer the question as to whether Dispensational Theology (DT) can be assimilated with TULIP.  It is important to note that the definitions of the 5 points I have in mind are those associated with the classic Confessions of Reformed theology and reproduced in the standard works.  I have decided I shall limit my Reformed sources to the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Westminster Confession, the Canons of Dordt, and one or two authoritative voices like John Murray, R. C. Sproul, the book by Steele and Thomas, etc.  I shall avail myself of the help of “Scriptures On The Doctrines of Grace” from Monergism.

I shall be looking at the passages used through the Grid of Category Formulations as follows:

C1 = doctrinal formulation via a straightforward quotation of Scripture (e.g. special creation)

C2 = a strong inference from the witness of several C1 passages (e.g. the Trinity)

C3 = a possible inference based on the text of scripture (e.g. the pre-trib rapture)

C4 = an theological inference usually based on another inference (e.g. infant baptism)

Dispensationalists who found their views on literal interpretation ought not to traffic in C4 formulations since they are not linked to the plain sense of Scripture and have to take advantage of a theological hermeneutics at variance with the system.

For this reason I think DT and TULIP are odd bedfellows (I also agree with 5 point Calvinists that 4 pointers who assent to four of the five formulations of TULIP are inconsistent).

What I am concerned with in these posts is the question of whether or not the kind of interpretative approach which persuades a person to be a dispensationalist works just as well in persuading them of the Five Points of Calvinism.  I might put it another way: will ones reasons for holding to dispensationalism suffice to bring them to embrace TULIP?

1. A Reformed Definition of Total Depravity [with clear references supplied]:

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead [Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1], blind [2 Cor. 4:4], and deaf [to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt [Jer. 17:9]. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature [Rom. 1:18-22, 3:10-18; Jn. 3:19-21] therefore, he will not–indeed he cannot–choose good over evil in the spiritual realm [Gen. 8:21; Jer. 13:23]. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ–it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation–it is God’s gift to the sinner [Phil. 1:29?], not the sinner’s gift to God.
(Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10) – David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (1963), 16.

I have underlined the parts in these statements that I think are difficult to establish from a plain reading of Scripture without the imposition of a theologized hermeneutics (i.e. a C4 formulation).  Before I engage these statements (and the verses used to support them) I shall outline my understanding of Total Depravity.

2. Total Depravity: A Summary of My Position:

A good place to start is Genesis 8:21, where even after the Flood and with only eight people alive, God assesses the state of the human heart.

And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. – Genesis 8:21

God sustains this post-flood world while knowing that in doing so He must put up with sin in every person’s heart (“heart” (leb/cardia) in Scripture includes our drives and reasonings as well as our emotions).  Notice it is man’s “intention” or inclination to perpetrate evil, even while young.  This “evil” is that which is contrary to God and His righteous purpose for man.  Man is not inclined to good because he is not inclined to God.

We “drink up iniquity like we drink water” (Job 15:16).  Therefore, Joshua’s indictment of Israel holds true for us all; we cannot serve God (Josh. 24:19).  But that suits the sinner, since,  “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned–every one–to his own way” (Isa. 53:6).  Thus, we are all the subjects of the prophet’s remark: “Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.” (Isa.59:2).  These “iniquities” remember, come from a heart that is always manufacturing them.  That is the default setting of the natural heart.   

The OT never veers from this course.  The God who sees into every man’s heart is unambiguous in His opinion of it (e.g. Psa. 44:21; 90:8; Jer. 2:22).  The texts are unanimous and very clear.  Just as no leopard can ever change its spots, so human beings can never do what God can count “good” seeing we are accustomed to do evil (Jer. 13:23).

The NT supplies us with more information.  Jesus calls the human heart “evil” – even the hearts of His disciples (Matt. 7:11).  In another post I wrote this (btw, I really need to finish that series!):

The Truth about fallen man is this: he is a hater of God (Rom. 1:30), counting God as his enemy (Rom. 5:10), failing to give Him glory or thanks (Rom.1:21).  The sin within fallen man is pervasive, coloring everything he does.  Therefore, he does not like to retain God in his thoughts (Rom. 1:28), preferring to exchange the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:26).  Man is at enmity with his Maker (Rom. 8:7).  Although made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), and originally made upright, man has actively sought out many wicked calculations (Eccles. 7:29).  He tells himself lies – sometimes very elaborate ones – which he uses to deny the rights of God, and even the very existence of God (Rom. 1:22-23, 25).  Yet, according to the Bible, man has this nagging awareness that he will be judged (Rom. 1:32), which makes his rebellious response all the more an insult.  He is evil (Matt. 7:11), having his understanding darkened and his heart blinded (Eph. 4:18).  In short, he is reigned over by sin (Rom. 5:21a).  On top of all this, mankind is so morally perverse as to believe that, if he needs redemption, he can have a hand in it himself!

Hence, I would agree with every passage cited under Total Depravity in the list I have linked to provided by Monergism.  All of them could be classified as C1 or C2 texts and could be inserted into a doctrinal formulation without much or any explanation.  That is, every passage with the exception of Jn. 3:3, 14:16 and 2 Cor. 1:9.  Let me explain my reservations on the use of these.

3. Reservations About the Use of Some Texts

  • John 3:3 states,  “…Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”  This means that a person must be born again in order to “see” the kingdom of God.  But what does that mean?  Kostenberger says it means to participate in the eschatological kingdom.  Leon Morris writes, “We are probably not meant to put much difference between seeing and entering (v.5)” – L. Morris, The Gospel According To John, NICNT, (1st edition), 214.  Hence, to “see” is to enter, to participate (Cf. Matt. 18:13).  Why then has this to do with Total Depravity?  Sure, a person must be regenerated before they can enter what D. A. Carson calls “God’s saving and transforming reign”, but nothing is said here about man’s actual state.  Of course, the verse is slipped in to do a certain job, a job it was never intended to do.
  • John 14:16 says, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”.  This verse is a promise of the Holy spirit and has no contribution to make to the doctrine we are discussing.
  • 2 Corinthians 1:9 says, “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead.”  By “raises [or, the raiser of] the dead” Paul means that he is trusting in God to empower and renew him in the midst of his daily struggles.  The verse is akin to passages like 2 Cor. 4:7-10f., or Gal. 6:14.  Why was it included in a list about Total Depravity?  Most readers know why.  It and Jn. 3:3 are being shanghaied to teach that regeneration precedes faith.  This explains my underlining in the Steele & Thomas definition above.  So we need to turn our attention to that subject.

4. Questions About Some Assertions About Total Depravity by Reformed Writers:

Within the definition of Total Depravity given by Steele & Thomas I inserted what I thought were some of the best C1 or C2 passages which support each proposition.  However, I did not insert any biblical reference to support the propositions I underlined.  The reason I did not do this is because I do not believe that there are any texts available except they be deployed as supports for C4 formulations.  That is to say, the texts are being misused to teach a doctrine they in fact don’t teach, but which some people strongly believe is biblical.  Here is the section under scrutiny:

(1) Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ–(2) it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. (3) Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation

(1) If by “the Spirit’s assistance” is meant the Spirit helping the sinner to make the right decision I would agree with them on the grounds of what has already been said.  But if what is meant includes any and every activity of the Spirit apart from regeneration I cannot see how that can be proved.  In fact the clear example of Cornelius in Acts 10 (he wasn’t born again until the end of the chapter) shows that a sinner can be drawn to God (Jn. 6:44) before being regenerated.  This is to say nothing of biblical passages which seem to go directly against this teaching.

(2) Where in either Testament is a passage (C1, C2 or even C3) which teaches that “it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature” in order for him to come to Christ?  None of the passages listed by Steele & Thomas or anywhere else I’ve seen point to this.  We acquiesce to their statement that “Men left to their dead state are unable of themselves to repent, to believe the gospel, or to come to Christ…etc” (29).  But how does this prove regeneration prior to faith?  One may claim it as an inevitable outcome of this “deadness” (to be discussed under Irresistible Grace), but that is all it is – a claim.  But it is not a strong claim in view of Acts 10, or, for example, Galatians 3:2, where Paul asks,  “This only would I learn of you, did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”  This question assumes the answer, “we received the Spirit through faith.”  Since the Holy Spirit is the Agent of the new birth (regeneration – Cf. Acts 10:47, 11:15-17), Galatians 3:2 provides a pretty telling rebuttal to this statement.  I would say it’s plain sense leads to the conclusion that regeneration comes after faith.  I would class this as a C2 formulation, whereas I find no plain sense texts (C1 or C2) which teach this aspect of the classic TULIP formulation of Total Depravity.

(3) “Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation.”  There are no C1 or C2 texts to support this notion.  Ephesians 2:8-9 is often drafted in to teach salvation is a gift and faith is part of salvation, but this (mis)use of the text assumes what it needs to prove.  I am persuaded mainly on the basis of Philippians 1:29 (C3 since it is not definitive) that faith is a gift, but I am far from being persuaded that faith is given after the Spirit regenerates the sinner (this, btw, is a major plank of John Owen’s argument in The Death of Death).   And I have not run into any supporting passage which is not press-ganged into illegitimate service of this proposition.

This same kind of formulation can be read in Articles 12 and 13 of the Canons of Dordt.  Article 12 reads:

And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal, new creation, resurrection from the dead, making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received. – Canons of Dordt, Heads 3-4: Article 12.

Every assertion we make requires solid scriptural support, especially if we are intent upon preaching it dogmatically.  This is where regeneration before faith falls down.  Our task is not to settle on a doctrine and then imply other doctrines from it.  It is to build each doctrine up from its scriptural base and then to attempt to systematize the whole.  As a dispensationalist, I do not see how I can formulate a doctrine of Total Depravity which includes this last clause.  Why so?  Because I find no hermeneutical warrant for such a formulation.

In fact we are asserting another doctrine when we say regeneration before faith.  We have left off Total Depravity.

Conclusion Regarding the ‘T’ of TULIP

The Apostle wrote, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:19-20).

“Now this can signify nothing but alienation and enmity of mind. Men are willing and industrious to know other things and labor after the knowledge of them, but they decline the knowledge of God and his ways, being alienated from God through the blindness of their heart… (Eph. 4:18).  This heart blindness is chosen and voluntary blindness and  signifies their having no mind or will to things of that nature. It is a wonderful thing to consider how man is capable of forming a thought, how a thought arises in our minds, and how sad it is to consider that though God has given to men this thinking power, yet they will not think of Him.” – John Howe, Collected Works, Vol. 4.  ‘Sermon on Man’s Enmity Against God.” (362-367).

There is always much more to say, but one has to stop somewhere.  I know there are others more brilliant than me who will disagree with what I have said, but this is my take on why dispensationalists cannot hold to TULIP as formulated by the standard texts of Reformed theology.

Advertisements

17 comments

  1. Hello Dr. Henebury,

    Thank you for these helpful insights. This post is really causing me to wrestle with a doctrine that may have colored my interpretation of certain passages. A key take-away from this post: “Every assertion we make requires solid scriptural support, especially if we are intent upon preaching it dogmatically.” Amen. Thank you for your precision and care with God’s precious Word!

  2. “Because I find no hermeneutical warrant for such a formulation”

    Really? NO hermeneutical warrent at ALL?

    Firstly, total depravity means inability which even your own defintion would warrent. You stated that “Man is not inclined to good because he is not inclined to God “.

    Hence the need for the new birth, in which the heart is changed supernaturally.

    One of the best texts is 1 John 5;1 where all who are believing (present tense participle) that Jesus is the Christ has been(perfect tense) born of God.

    The perfect tense here(with completed action in the past) is the ground for the action of ongoing belief. The divine action of the new birth resulted in the believing.

    This accords with what Jesus said about the reason or cause for the unbelief of the Jews in John 8:47

    He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

    & John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

  3. Pierre,

    I have not yet interacted with 1 Jn 5:1 because it relates better to Irresistible Grace than to Total Depravity. Hence, you can expect me to handle it there.

    Do you know of any other texts you would use to prove regeneration before faith? Please keep in mind my distinguishing between what I call C1 and C2 texts and C3 and (esp.) C4 texts. In drawing these distinctions I am trying to get a picture of the degree of correspondence between the text cited (exegeted within its context) and the theological proposition it is being brought in to prove. It is on that basis I say I find no hermeneutical WARRANT for the formulation of regeneration prior to faith as part of a definition of Total Depravity.

    I must ask you to be patient with me. I will try hard to address your questions as this series proceeds.

    Your brother,

    Paul

  4. No worries. I don’t mean to be impatient, but thank you for addressing this excellent topic. This is a necessary examination for us to work through, and I think I can learn much, and hopefully all of us will come through better informed.

  5. Excellent article Paul, I look forward to the a review of the other four points. I have noticed that there is very little objective material out there as anyone who writes on the subject has an agenda. If you look at the reformed sites Calvin was practically deity and if you read those opposed to him he was Satan himself. I appreciate your objectivity.

  6. Just a few more thoughts…

    I don’t see any clear C1 or C2 references to synergistic faith in spiritually dead people. In light of all that Scripture does say, especially in view of total depravity, I think the onus is on you and others to show us how DEAD sinners are ABLE to co-operate with efficient grace, IN THEIR SPIRITUAL DEATH and FLESHLINESS.

    I pointed out 1 John 5:1 b/c you were looking for references to regeneration before faith. I think this verse is particularly good, in that it syntactically puts regeneration before faith.

    I just don’t see how you can agree with most of Reformed references to total depravity, and what that means, and still see that people who are enemies of God, can co-operate with the Spirit in order to believe and result in the new birth.

    And I still don’t see yet, (perhaps I’m going to far ahead) how a literal reading of the bible seeing dispensations is a disjunction to TULIP.

    In your summary of TD, I think you mentioned almost every condition of being a sinner (blindness, enmity, etc) but I saw no reference to DEATH. This is the real issue. How do the spiritually dead “believe” apart from having spiritual life? It’s the life that leads to spiritual activity, not vice versa.

    Anyway…I look forward to more interaction. Thanks again for doing this series.

    Pierre

    1. Pierre,

      There are a heap of assumptions here with which you have bedeviled me 🙂 I will not be rushed even though I sympathize with your zeal. I actually did refer to the sinner’s “deadness” under 4.2 and said I would address it later (actually under Limited Atonement because I think its real force comes in there). Notice also I didn’t underline the word “dead” in the Steele & Thomas definition, and actually supplied two clear texts for it. The question in that discussion will be “what is meant by ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ in Eph. 2:1.”

      I am no synergist either. I just do not equate “efficacious grace” with regeneration.

      I am busy, and I want to finish a review, but I’ll try to have these installments out asap so you can size up my whole argument.

      God bless,

      P.

  7. ” I don’t see any clear C1 or C2 references to synergistic faith in spiritually dead people. In light of all that Scripture does say, especially in view of total depravity, I think the onus is on you and others to show us how DEAD sinners are ABLE to co-operate with efficient grace, IN THEIR SPIRITUAL DEATH and FLESHLINESS. ”

    I find that your comments are very misleading and appears to follow the false arguments of the late Dr. John H. Gerstner ( Wrongly Dividing The Word Of Truth ) and Dr. R.C. Sproul ( Willing To Believe The Controvery Over Free will ) . In our salvation the elect are empowered by God to have faith. It is a divine enabled choice. The elect have faith in Christ. Your argument is only valid if you personally exclude faith in Jesus Christ in receiving eternal life. Calvinist and Arminians each agree that prior to faith a person must be empowered by God to believe. The dividing point between then is the nature of that work and it’s extent of who it will be done to. Paul Henebury to my knowledge, myself and many early dispensationalist such as Lewis Sperry Chafer and John Walvoord rejected the Arminian view of Prevenient grace which teaches God gives sufficient grace to the entire human race to believe due to the death of Jesus Christ and can be saved if they will to do so. It is held that only the elect will be empowered to believe and that this work is efficacious in all cases it is given and is the work of the omnipotence work of God. This is called efficacious calling and is distinct from what is called regeneration or the new birth. The basic error of many Calvinist is making efficacious grace synonymous with regeneration ( Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theology ) or sometimes make regeneration procede efficacious calling ( Dr. John Gerstner and Dr. R.C.Sproul ) . Regeneration is wholly the work of God. In regeneration God is active and man’s faith is passive. Regeneration is the work of God and conversion is the work of man. Faith does not cause regeneration. God alone is the cause of it. But regeneration must never be separated from faith either. They exist side by side with each other. Regeneration occurs at the moment of faith in Christ. The person is brought to faith by the work of efficacious calling by God which procedes the work of regeneration by God and faith by a person. The text John 6:44 is a great case in point. The elect while in a state of unbelief are to be ” drawn ” by the Father to belief in Christ and are to be raised up on the last day. This irresistible drawing is to one in unbelief which results in belief in the one drawn. The views expressed here embraces not Arminianism or Semi-Pelagianism but is rather a more moderate form of Calvinism than that approved of by the Synod of Dort which confused the grace which empowers one to believe with the act of regeneration. There is no ” synergism ” as you call it involved.

    “I pointed out 1 John 5:1 b/c you were looking for references to regeneration before faith. I think this verse is particularly good, in that it syntactically puts regeneration before faith. ”

    The text is not teaching the logical order of the relationship between regeneration and faith. The Arminian is in error there which claims it teaches faith the the cause or procedes regeneration. Likewise some Calvinist also error is using that to prove that regeneration procedes faith logically. That is not the intent of the verse at all. The context has nothing to do with the claimed logical order. The intent of it is to show that a Christans faith in Christ in their daily lives is the proof of their regeneration. Regeneration is taught to be by God alone in the text. A christians faith will last forever due to the fact of regeneration. You must remember human logic and human reasoning is subject to Scripture and not equal in authority with it. I would agree regeneration is the impartation of eternal life and that faith is the manifestation of life. But we are not to separate those two things totally from one another as in this case trying to force a logical order to the text when that is not warrented by it.

    “I just don’t see how you can agree with most of Reformed references to total depravity, and what that means, and still see that people who are enemies of God, can co-operate with the Spirit in order to believe and result in the new birth….. How do the spiritually dead “believe” apart from having spiritual life? It’s the life that leads to spiritual activity, not vice versa ”

    Give him time to get to his point. But I should say I dont believe he embraces the Arminian concept of ” prevenient grace ” or ” sufficient grace for everyone to believe ” position. He does not confuse the work of God which empowers one to believe with the act of regeneration. That is what I am seeing in his article on where he is leading to. Wait and see what he post.

  8. Hello Paul.
    I really enjoyed reading this post (and comments) and have been looking forward to future installments on TULIP. As this is an subject that I am trying to work through myself, I hope you come back to this series soon.

  9. There are no verses in the Bible that teach regeneration precedes faith. Though there are several that show faith precedes regeneration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s