The Invention of Irresistible Grace

[mondar]

St. Augustine had taught his disciples that they were to kill those who disagreed with them, and now, having found the Arminians guilty, the Calvinists went to the government.

Citation, please, before you spread scandalous libel upon a man who cannot defend himself.

Regards

Did you get an answer yet?

 

[Vic C.]

If accusations are made, the Staff expects proof of said accusation(s). :yes

Thank you.

 

[Vic C.]

I'll give you all a hint:

Cognite intrare doctrine.

But be careful, most the sources so far are by Islam, skeptics and atheists. :gah

 

[watchman F]

Jacob Arminius, a brilliant Calvinist scholar, began studying Scripture on his own, and was amazed to learn that the grace of God is given to all men, that all men are called to repentance, and that God wants all men to be saved. He also learned that God elects (chooses) to save all who believe, but He does not elect anyone to repent, to believe, to accept Christ, or reject Christ.

And Arminius had discovered a fatal philosophical flaw in Calvinism that proved that the system could not possibly work. In blending the pagan philosophy of unconditional election with Christianity, St. Augustine had taught that since man is dead in trespasses and sin, he cannot respond to God. This contradicted Scripture, which gives three instances of Jesus speaking to a dead person, who both heard and obeyed Him.

St. Augustine taught that God gave grace only to the elect, which contradicted the Biblical teaching that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. And here, both St. Augustine and John Calvin had made a fatal error.

Since man could not respond to God at all, the elect couldn't respond to God's grace. Period. The system can't work. Period.

Awesome post. Thank you so much Vince. You couldn't believe how many calvinist (christian) forums I have been banned from for speaking these types of truths.

 

[handy]

Some people find God's grace irresistable! :yes

I know I do!!!

However, as a doctrine, I find the concept of irresistible grace not supported by the Scriptures. There are a lot of texts that point to the idea of God's grace being irresistible, except in all the cases in which God extended His grace and it was resisted. I found when I fellowshipped with Calvinists, they were very big on holding onto all the texts that point towards irresistible grace, and just sort of glossed over all the texts that show that God's grace and Spirit can be resisted.

The OP though really doesn't give that great of an example to counter the idea of irresistible grace. The very fact that Jesus was the One who called forth the dead, proves rather that God's grace is effectual to those that are dead, both in sin and physically. Which is the whole point of irresistible grace.

 

[francisdesales]

Citation, please, before you spread scandalous libel upon a man who cannot defend himself.

Hmmm. Tough one. I know I read it somewhere over the years, so I tried to find it.

Good luck. I haven't read all of Augustine, but this seems quite out of character for him.

Before I continue, I'll agree that Augustine was not a "pre-Calvin", so any attempt for Calvin to trace his "doctrines" to Augustine are faulty and gloss over much of what Augustine wrote...

I had no difficulty finding how Augustine blended polytheism into Christianity by having us worship dead saints.

Again, another false assertion. Please post one citation from HIM, please, to this affect. You sure you've actually read anything from Augustine, or do you just have something against the dead saint's writings???

And it was easy to find how he blended idolatry into Christianity by teaching that the statues we were to pray to only reminded us of these saints.

It is easy how you came to that conclusion, when you THINK he actually said those things... Reality is a bit different.

 

[mondar]

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.
All quotes are from ASV.
In the text above, the question is raised why some have seen Christ, his signs, and yet they do not believe. How can this be? The answer is found in the verses following.

Joh 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
In verse 37 of all those that the Fathers gives the son, how many come to Christ? Pick one of the following.
1---- Some that the Father gives the son shall come to him, others will resist.
2---- Most of those that the Father gives the Son because a few will resist.
3---- Nearly all that the Father gives the Son will come to him, but a very small minority will resist.
4---- All that which the Father gives the Son shall come to him.

Maybe some will come to Christ and he will loose them because they will resist?
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
The verse returns to the same subject concerning "of all that which he has given me." Of the given ones spoken of in both verse 37 and 39, how many will be lost by the Son?
1---- Of all that which he has given me I should loose most of them.
2---- Of all that which he has given me I should loose some of them.
3---- Of all that which he has given me I should loose only a few of them.
4---- Of all that which he has given me I should loose nothing.

Notice the last part of verse 39 (and verse 40). The person given to the Son, which the Son will not loose, will be raise up to eternal life. He will be saved.

I think an obvious question about the text needs to be asked, how can it possibly be that every single person given by the Father to the Son will come to him and none of them shall be lost? If God's grace is so easily refused, why is he batting 100%. Why does his grace not even fail one time in this passage? Lets go on and see how he does it....

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Lets start with the first part. Of all the people in the world, how man can come to Christ?
1---- Most can come to Christ.
2---- Some can come to Christ.
3---- A few can come to Christ.
4---- No man can come to Christ.
Now the word "can" is the greek word dunami. It speaks of ability. No man has the ability to come to Christ. How then do they come to Christ if no man has the ability? Lets read on.

The ones who come are "the Father that sent me draw him."
Now, the question of irresistible grace comes into focus. God is drawing some to salvation. He is drawing those in verse 37 "those that the Father has given me."

Of the ones that are given (verse 37), and none of them are lost (39), and they are drawn (vs 44), how many of them are able to resist this drawing? The final phrase in verse 44 says it all... "I will raise him up on the last day." This is the same phrase found in verse 40 for the person who has eternal life.

The process of Gods grace is that he (1) gives some to the Son (2) preserves those he has given
(3) Draws them to the Son (4) raises them up on the last day.

God does not fail in any step in this process, he does not loose any, his grace is not some feeble things that is a mere possibility for salvation, it is a powerful grace that saves to the uttermost those whom he has chosen to save.

 

[francisdesales]

I'll gove you all a hint:

Cognite intrare doctrine.

But be careful, most the sources so far are by Islam, skeptics and atheists. :gah

The "accusastion" stems from the Donatist period. When viewing history, one must consider the context from which schism sprung from. Here is a passage from the Catholic Encylopedia that helps to explain this context:

At the time of Augustine's arrival in Hippo, the schism {Donatism} had attained immense proportions, having become identified with political tendencies — perhaps with a national movement against Roman domination. In any event, it is easy to discover in it an undercurrent of anti-social revenge which the emperors had to combat by strict laws. The strange sect known as "Soldiers of Christ," and called by Catholics Circumcelliones (brigands, vagrants), resembled the revolutionary sects of the Middle Ages in point of fanatic destructiveness — a fact that must not be lost sight of, if the severe legislation of the emperors is to be properly appreciated.

The history of Augustine's struggles with the Donatists is also that of his change of opinion on the employment of rigorous measures against the heretics; and the Church in Africa, of whose councils he had been the very soul, followed him in the change. This change of views is solemnly attested by the Bishop of Hippo himself, especially in his Letters, 93 (in the year 408). In the beginning, it was by conferences and a friendly controversy that he sought to re-establish unity. He inspired various conciliatory measures of the African councils, and sent ambassadors to the Donatists to invite them to re-enter the Church, or at least to urge them to send deputies to a conference (403). The Donatists met these advances at first with silence, then with insults, and lastly with such violence that Possidius Bishop of Calamet, Augustine's friend, escaped death only by flight, the Bishop of Bagaïa was left covered with horrible wounds, and the life of the Bishop of Hippo himself was several times attempted (Letter 88, to Januarius, the Donatist bishop). This madness of the Circumcelliones required harsh repression, and Augustine, witnessing the many conversions that resulted therefrom, thenceforth approved rigid laws. However, this important restriction must be pointed out: that St. Augustine never wished heresy to be punishable by death — Vos rogamus ne occidatis (Letter 100, to the Proconsul Donatus). But the bishops still favoured a conference with the schismatics, and in 410 an edict issued by Honorius put an end to the refusal of the Donatists. A solemn conference took place at Carthage, in June, 411, in presence of 286 Catholic, and 279 Donatist bishops. The Donatist spokesmen were Petilian of Constantine, Primian of Carthage, and Emeritus of Cæsarea; the Catholic orators, Aurelius and Augustine. On the historic question then at issue, the Bishop of Hippo proved the innocence of Cæcilian and his consecrator Felix, and in the dogmatic debate he established the Catholic thesis that the Church, as long as it is upon earth, can, without losing its holiness, tolerate sinners within its pale for the sake of converting them. In the name of the emperor the Proconsul Marcellinus sanctioned the victory of the Catholics on all points. Little by little Donatism died out, to disappear with the coming of the Vandals.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm

Let's let Augustine speak for himself. Here is Letter 100, written to Donatus. I think one can see Augustine's attitude towards the heresiarch was not one of murder...

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102100.htm

And here is Letter 93, which speaks of his attitude towards the Donatists to another Catholic. Again, no mention of a desire to kill the heretics.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm

Regards

 

[Vince]

Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was a Dutch military veteran and statesman who had fought in Holland's war for independence from Spain. As "Advocate." he negotiated a twelve year truce in the war that essentially made Holland independent, but not officially so.

The newly independent Holland did not have one clear government. At times, the Advocate was the only legal authority. Other times, the courts, which were authorized by Spain, claimed to be the highest authority. And some of the Dutch states wanted to seceed, but Oldenbarnevelt was able to keep them together.

The Calvinists opposed his making peace with Spain, and they opposed his support of freedom of religion. They strongly opposed his call for a national church council to decide on the Arminian-Calvinist conflict, rather than having a Calvinist-packed Synod of Dort. The Calvinist leader, Prince Maurice, also opposed Oldenbarnevelt's ending riots between Calvinists and Arminians, and was angered by the Advocate's refusal to persecute Arminians. Raising an army, the Calvinists arrested Oldenbarnevelt. A kangaroo court of his enemies, that consisted entirely of Calvinists and had doubtful legal standing, was unable to find any crimes that he had committed in office, but executed him five days after the Synod of Dort.

The government was, however, unwilling to be as bloody as the Calvinists wanted them to be. About 200 Arminian pastors were removed from office, and many were banished. Some were imprisoned. But persecution was sporadic, and some areas tolerated then. After Prince Maurice died, the Netherlands granted freedom of religion to the Arminians, and persecution ended.

 

[francisdesales]

God does not fail in any step in this process, he does not loose any, his grace is not some feeble things that is a mere possibility for salvation, it is a powerful grace that saves to the uttermost those whom he has chosen to save.

You are presuming that our utilization of our God-given free will is an indication of a failure by God, forgeting that God has already seen our response to Him in the first place, and any grace given to us TODAY (and seen as efficient in the "future) is INDEED an "irresistible grace"... But grace itself, when considering an individual from our point of view, is indeed subject to free will rejection, a rejection clearly "foreseen" by God.

 

[mondar]

God does not fail in any step in this process, he does not loose any, his grace is not some feeble things that is a mere possibility for salvation, it is a powerful grace that saves to the uttermost those whom he has chosen to save.

You are presuming that our utilization of our God-given free will is an indication of a failure by God, forgeting that God has already seen our response to Him in the first place, and any grace given to us TODAY (and seen as efficient in the "future) is INDEED an "irresistible grace"... But grace itself, when considering an individual from our point of view, is indeed subject to free will rejection, a rejection clearly "foreseen" by God.

Do you want to discuss the text?

 

[francisdesales]

Do you want to discuss the text?

My friend, no doubt, our paradigms will be the driving force behind our interpretations of the text. If one sees God's Love as very restrictive, given only to a few randomly selected people, then that one will indeed see John's writing as refering to "their" particular group as the "called ones". If one sees God's Love as overflowing, reaching out to all of creation because HE created it, one will read the text differently, that those who respond are the called out ones, but saying nothing about whom the call reaches out to in the first place...!

This is why the Tradition of the Church is so important when reading Sacred Scriptures, Mondar. The paradigm of the first Christians reached out to all, hence, the term "catholic".

Regards

 

[mondar]

Do you want to discuss the text?

My friend, no doubt, our paradigms will be the driving force behind our interpretations of the text. If one sees God's Love as very restrictive, given only to a few randomly selected people, then that one will indeed see John's writing as refering to "their" particular group as the "called ones". If one sees God's Love as overflowing, reaching out to all of creation because HE created it, one will read the text differently, that those who respond are the called out ones, but saying nothing about whom the call reaches out to in the first place...!

This is why the Tradition of the Church is so important when reading Sacred Scriptures, Mondar. The paradigm of the first Christians reached out to all, hence, the term "catholic".

Regards

I would say that the only one that looks at the love of God in a non "restrictive" sense is the universalist. Either God did not love his creation enough to save them with certainty and save the absolutely,.... or he saved them with certainty but did not choose to save all.

Concerning interpretation of John 6, no doubt I could be approaching the text with my own paradigm in the back of my mind. However, in my tradition, I would say we should correct or tradition by study of the scriptures. Would not such an attitude produce better exegesis then the attitude of correcting our understanding of scripture because of our tradition?

Francis, I was just reading a thread on CatholicAnswers here.... http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... 835&page=3

I am referring to post #36. I think this guy had something to say on the differences between how protestants look at the bible and how Catholics. I would comment more, but I have to go.

 

[francisdesales]

I would say that the only one that looks at the love of God in a non "restrictive" sense is the universalist. Either God did not love his creation enough to save them with certainty and save the absolutely,.... or he saved them with certainty but did not choose to save all.

Untrue, brother. There is no "either/or" here. I have already stated that God's grace is universal, but it is not always efficient, resulting in a conversion of the heart - since the "soil" is also something to be considered. Thus, we must hold onto the tension of both sides, man's free will and God's complete and utter sovereignty. The Bible does not allow dismissal of either, as you apparently seem to preach.

Concerning interpretation of John 6, no doubt I could be approaching the text with my own paradigm in the back of my mind. However, in my tradition, I would say we should correct or tradition by study of the scriptures. Would not such an attitude produce better exegesis then the attitude of correcting our understanding of scripture because of our tradition?

I don't believe in "letting the Scriptures ALONE" tell me what God's intent is with the Sacred Writ. Certainly, I can come to better understand God's Word by reading Scriptures, but God left us a Church, a community that passed down Traditions - teachings - which were operative in determining WHAT those Sacred Scriptures meant. We have a wonderful example of this in the writings of Irenaeus vs the Gnostics. St. Irenaeus made it clear that one could interpret Scriptures in many different ways, but the intent of passages depends on how the Church has taught it - and this remains part of how we regard the Scriptures.

Francis, I was just reading a thread on CatholicAnswers here.... http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... 835&page=3

I am referring to post #36. I think this guy had something to say on the differences between how protestants look at the bible and how Catholics. I would comment more, but I have to go.

I'll see if I can comment later on that.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I was just reading a thread on CatholicAnswers here.... http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... 835&page=3

I am referring to post #36. I think this guy had something to say on the differences between how protestants look at the bible and how Catholics. I would comment more, but I have to go.

I cannot respond to who was trounced by whom in debates. I find it difficult to think that ANY knowledgeable Catholic was "trounced" on the subject of Sola Scriptura, for example... I have seen Mr. White debate before, and he may "appear" scholarly, but in fact, it becomes obvious he is indeed a text twister. He is quite frustrating to debate because of his tactics more so than his material. He cites Church Fathers out of context, and someone willing to do the research can easily point that out - although he'll then jump to another subject quickly. To the uninformed, his half truths are easily accepted, and it takes much effort to prove him wrong. I am turned off by his approach, and I think James McCarthy is a better representative of the Protestant viewpoint vis a vis Rome.

I do agree with the poster's final statements of "Protestant viewpoint towards Church is masculine" and "Catholic is feminine". I have heard this observation before made by a Catholic apologist Mark Shea in attempting to explain Catholic v Protestant viewpoint and paradigm, esp. regarding Mary (who we see is a profound foreshadowing of the Church presented immaculate to the Lord). Honestly, both are valid and true means of approaching the Church and I think it is a mistake to try to state which is more "correct", but it does give an interesting approach from someone who was both Protestant and Catholic.

Perhaps that is why we sometimes speak past each other - paradigms are important.

Regards

 

[Vince]

Since the Greek word translated "grace" refers to kindness and graciousness, not "force," grace cannot be irresistible. The concept of irresistible grace was invented in the early seventeenth century to patch a fatal flaw in Calvinism.

No church father believed in irresistible grace, no church council ever debated it, no group of Christians had ever believed in it, and no Protestant Reformer had believed in it.

In fact, they had never heard of it.

 

[sherri2]

Even a ten year old with decent bible knowledge and common sense can point out the basic flaws in calvanist theology. It isn't that difficult.

(ok, maybe a 12 year old)

or a ten year old with just common sense because children tend to have a better desire for and understanding of justice then many adults.

 

[Vince]

You're correct, Sherri. Mani, the false prophet who built one of the world's great religions, was not the only person to invent unconditional election, but he was the most successful. Attempting to blend various religions, including Christianity, into a new and better religion, his religion survives today as Reformed Theology.

Forced to convert to Christianity under threat of death, the Manichaean philosopher Saint Augustine strove to blend the best of paganism with the best of Christianity to produce a new and better religion. Saint Augustine didn't find unconditional election in Scripture; he got it from Mani.

Centuries later, John Calvin learned unconditional election from Saint Augustine, not from Scripture. Calvin, however, invented the new doctrine, that unconditional election is taught in Scripture, which neither Mani nor St. Augustine believed.