The Philosophy of Irresistible Grace

[Dude named Louis]

actually we agree. I do believe that God does predestinon but its still our choice. A mystery indeed. I dont think we will ever understand this. Kinda like the trinity.

A wise man says "I don't understand". :nod

 

[prough91]

A wise man says "I don't understand".

I must be super wise! :yes

 

[glorydaz]

actually we agree. I do believe that God does predestinon but its still our choice. A mystery indeed. I dont think we will ever understand this. Kinda like the trinity.

A wise man says "I don't understand". :nod

God's sovereignty and man's free will aren't incompatible. God decreed that man has a free will but keeps him within certain parameters. As someone once put it, we're like a bug in a sack. :biglaugh

Personally, I prefer to use the analogy of a toddler playing in the backyard.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

The foreknowledge of God seems to be what man has such a hard time understanding.
God can know what we choose before we choose it...being all powerful as He is.

In His sovereignty, God has willingly limited Himself...just as Jesus did when he became man.

He could have made Jerusalem love Him, but He didn't want robots, He wanted us to come willingly. He knew who would resist Him before He formed us in our mother's womb...He saw our heart, and He chose those who would come before we chose Him.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

 

[Vince]

For the record, those who accept Christ are predestined to be adopted as sons, and are predestined to be conformed to His image.

There is no such thing as predestination to Hell, predestination to Heaven, predestination to be saved, predestination to repent, or predestination to believe.

 

[Joe67]

Vince,

Have you ever experienced resisting grace?

Transgressing the 10 commandments does not qualify as resisting grace.

Joe

I'm not sure what you mean, but since the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, I've experienced (and accepted) grace.

Vince,

Now that grace has come to you, do you think you could resist it? Is there any thing that can compare with the grace that you would trade it away? As beautiful and delightful as the law is, there are things that a man trades for the law and its promises. Our lust is stronger than the law in which we delight. Grace is greater than lust, and delivers us from the power of lust. What would we trade for this glorious grace?

Grace that is greater than all our sin. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. What can resist grace? It is the strongest of all the qualities of God in Jesus Christ.

2 Cor 12:9
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. KJV

Nothing within us can resist the glory of this weakness of Jesus Christ, the grace wherein he tasted death for every man. It makes us glory in our infirmities to know Christ.

Joe

 

[glorydaz]

But the grace of God has appeared to all men, and some do resist.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Grace is God's unmerited favor....He sent His Son to taste death of every man.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Jesus is the grace of God...He is our unmerited favor, and yet men resist the Gospel and our Lord.

For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

 

[Vince]

Another foundational philosophy of irresistible grace is:

If you believe true doctrine "A," then you must also believe false doctrine "B." Therefor, true doctrine "A" must be false.

I am amazed at how strongly Calvinists insist that if you believe that God loves the world, that Jesus died for all men, and that God wants all men to be saved, that you must be a universalist. I have actually seen Calvinists getting upset when I insisted that this is not true.

Insisting that anyone who rejects the teachings of St. Augustine and John Calvin must belong to a group (Universalists) is not only not taught by Scripture, but it defies the testimonies of untold millions of Christians. It's a scare tactic that keeps some people within the Calvinist group, but it is false.

 

[Joe67]

The beauty of God revealed in his creation is not the grace of God. The communication of God to the 12 tribes is not the grace of God.

The voice that spoke to Adam and Eve hidden among the trees is the grace of God. The voice that spoke to Noah is the grace of God. The voice that spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the grace of God. The voice that called Moses to minister is the grace of God. In the mountain Moses spoke to the Lord and said, Ex 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. KJV. The people did not enter into God's rest.

The grace of God is the calling to minister, even though we minister law to those who are still in bondage. When we have been set free from bondage, others we are called to serve can still need the elements of the bond woman to protect them from their lusts. They are babes, lambs, and they still need milk and need to be protected. Some we serve are the young men, warriors in Christ and they need more doctrinal strong meat to strengthen them in the battle with the wicked one. When we are old men, fathers, then our full fellowship is with the fathers, those who have been perfected through the suffering that is in the grace of God. In the grace of God there is a sweetness in its justifying power, and there is an accompanying bitterness in its sanctifying and perfecting power. When it is bitter in our bellies, then the water of life flows to those we are called to serve in the body of Christ.

There is a communication from God that shews us our sin and uncleanness and forgives and cleanses us as God gave to King David, in his sins of adultery/murder and numbering Israel. Thus many, an innumerable multitude, are given to wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb. A few of these are chosen of God to minister as the apostles were chosen to minister, without a place to lay their head, that they called their own. There was a "multitude" of faithful followers of the Lord Jesus who were not chosen as apostles. They were given different gifts, but less of the spiritual revelation in the gospel and the election and foreknowledge of God, thereby retaining more of the human ownership over their daily, physical affairs. The little babes who still are on the breast do not have a gift apart from their mothers, but they are babes, born through the blood. Even in the womb, they are living through the blood. The young men are between the ages of 20-60; spiritually speaking. You cannot know him who is from the beginning until you become old, spiritually 60. You must first be a babe in Christ and then become a young warrior, warring against the law of sin that is in your members. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, at the appointed moment, will come to you beyond all your knowledge and planning and bring you into the last phase of preparation for glory. He will perfect you as he did Jesus, and you will cry out the same cry, "Father, if it possible, may this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not my will but your will be done. (in earth as it is in heaven).

Joe

 

[Dude named Louis]

Another foundational philosophy of irresistible grace is:

If you believe true doctrine "A," then you must also believe false doctrine "B." Therefor, true doctrine "A" must be false.

I am amazed at how strongly Calvinists insist that if you believe that God loves the world, that Jesus died for all men, and that God wants all men to be saved, that you must be a universalist. I have actually seen Calvinists getting upset when I insisted that this is not true.

Insisting that anyone who rejects the teachings of St. Augustine and John Calvin must belong to a group (Universalists) is not only not taught by Scripture, but it defies the testimonies of untold millions of Christians. It's a scare tactic that keeps some people within the Calvinist group, but it is false.

I really don't know where you are getting all this "foundational philosophy" stuff brother. You're not giving any reference to anything you're saying—it's all anecdotal and opinion. And as far as scare tactics, you make Calvinists sound like the Hell's Angels.

 

[francisdesales]

[quote="Dude named Louis]

Beautiful post. There are tensions, paradoxes and mysteries.[/quote]

Thanks. Sometimes I have to step back from my own attempts to put the period on doctrines - this is the way it is, etc... as the Bible often appears to support two points of views on various subjects, like free will and predestination. Paradoxes don't let us take an extreme without ignoring the other side...

Sometimes, it is better to say "Let it be done to me according to your word", without fully knowing the "how's" or the "why's"...

This is how our faith and trust in God grows.

Take care

 

[Vince]

Another foundational philosophy of irresistible grace is wrongly called "the whole of Scripture." The argument is actually true: a verse cannot contradict the rest of the Bible. But the wrong use is the most common.

When confronted with a verse he doesn't like, a person will reply that the verse is false, because it contradicts "the whole of Scripture." By "the whole of Scripture," he means the beliefs of his group, not the Bible. For instance, John 3:16 clearly teaches that God loves the world. Someone will respond that "the whole of Scripture" teaches that God does not love the world, so the word "world" must mean the "elect." As you produce one Scripture after another showing that God does love the world, and that the world does not refer to Christians, the person will reject each verse one at a time, claiming "the whole of Scripture."

 

[mondar]

For the record, those who accept Christ are predestined to be adopted as sons, and are predestined to be conformed to His image.

There is no such thing as predestination to Hell, predestination to Heaven, predestination to be saved, predestination to repent, or predestination to believe.

So then can people be in the image of Christ and go to hell?

 

[mondar]

Much of the discussion lacks a history of the doctrine. The doctrine of irresistible grace actually has its foundations before the 17th century, but comes out of a 17th century debate in Dort. At Dort, the Remonstrants (Arminians) presented their 5 points. Of course the 5 points presented to counter the Remonstrants (Arminians) are what we know as TULIP. Many seek a middle ground, but no true middle ground exists. As one modifies TULIP, at best you often have a theology close to the Remonstrants, but normally it is far worse (closer to Pelagianism). Pelagianism is another issue, but I will not speak of that for now.

Concerning Irresistible Grace, it is the 4th point of the Remonstrance that is being responded to by the term Irresistible Grace. Let me quote from Wiki.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_artic ... monstrance
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
* First of all, I notice few speaking of the "prevenient or assisting grace." To miss that would cause one to lean more toward Pelagianism. Even the original Arminians believed in regeneration before faith (not in time, but in a logical order). The free will spoken of by many in this thread so far does not seem to include that concept, but is closer to the Pelagian system in which free will is not restored by regeneration, but is something natural to the human race.
* The Remonstrants also spoke of cooperation with the grace of God above. Of course this would men that salvation is synergistic, and that it would not be totally by grace. Part of salvation would then be human merit in the Remonstrance. I have complained in a recent thread that most non-Calvinists are really very close to Roman Catholic theology which is also synergistic and would deny that salvation is 100% the effort of God for man.
* The defense of the Remonstrants can be seen right in the text above. The use the text in Acts 7. I, as one who am not Armianian, would dispute that text. It speaks of the Jews resisting the HS. I dont think these were regenerate Jews, but unregenerate, and then of course they resisted the HS. All unregenerate people resist the HS, none can follow the promptings of the HS. (Romans 3:11; John 1:13; etc).

In conclusion, I wish many of the writers in this and other threads were Arminian. Many of you who see yourself as somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism are actually worse then the historic Arminians. Your view of free will I see as a denial of total depravity, and original sin.

I have always enjoyed what John MacArther said about free will. He said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." I agree with that! I like that! We all loved our rebellion until God regenerates us and changes our free will so that we choose him. The one regenerated does not resist God, but wants God. He then loves the things of God. He chooses God.

Before I deny Irresistible Grace, I would have to see a verse that says that regeneration can be rejected by the will of man. Now of course, many non-Calvinists will not even know the difference between regeneration (A ministry of the HS in changing the nature of man) and salvation. Salvation includes justification (Romans & Galatians), imputation of righteousness (Romans 4), and the high priestly ministry of Christ in the atonement (book of Hebrews).

 

[Dude named Louis]

Much of the discussion lacks a history of the doctrine. The doctrine of irresistible grace actually has its foundations before the 17th century, but comes out of a 17th century debate in Dort. At Dort, the Remonstrants (Arminians) presented their 5 points. Of course the 5 points presented to counter the Remonstrants (Arminians) are what we know as TULIP. Many seek a middle ground, but no true middle ground exists. As one modifies TULIP, at best you often have a theology close to the Remonstrants, but normally it is far worse (closer to Pelagianism). Pelagianism is another issue, but I will not speak of that for now.

Concerning Irresistible Grace, it is the 4th point of the Remonstrance that is being responded to by the term Irresistible Grace. Let me quote from Wiki.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_artic ... monstrance
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
* First of all, I notice few speaking of the "prevenient or assisting grace." To miss that would cause one to lean more toward Pelagianism. Even the original Arminians believed in regeneration before faith (not in time, but in a logical order). The free will spoken of by many in this thread so far does not seem to include that concept, but is closer to the Pelagian system in which free will is not restored by regeneration, but is something natural to the human race.
* The Remonstrants also spoke of cooperation with the grace of God above. Of course this would men that salvation is synergistic, and that it would not be totally by grace. Part of salvation would then be human merit in the Remonstrance. I have complained in a recent thread that most non-Calvinists are really very close to Roman Catholic theology which is also synergistic and would deny that salvation is 100% the effort of God for man.
* The defense of the Remonstrants can be seen right in the text above. The use the text in Acts 7. I, as one who am not Armianian, would dispute that text. It speaks of the Jews resisting the HS. I dont think these were regenerate Jews, but unregenerate, and then of course they resisted the HS. All unregenerate people resist the HS, none can follow the promptings of the HS. (Romans 3:11; John 1:13; etc).

In conclusion, I wish many of the writers in this and other threads were Arminian. Many of you who see yourself as somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism are actually worse then the historic Arminians. Your view of free will I see as a denial of total depravity, and original sin.

I have always enjoyed what John MacArther said about free will. He said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." I agree with that! I like that! We all loved our rebellion until God regenerates us and changes our free will so that we choose him. The one regenerated does not resist God, but wants God. He then loves the things of God. He chooses God.

Before I deny Irresistible Grace, I would have to see a verse that says that regeneration can be rejected by the will of man. Now of course, many non-Calvinists will not even know the difference between regeneration (A ministry of the HS in changing the nature of man) and salvation. Salvation includes justification (Romans & Galatians), imputation of righteousness (Romans 4), and the high priestly ministry of Christ in the atonement (book of Hebrews).

Nicely done.

 

[Dude named Louis]

I'd add that I think John Piper explains it pretty well:

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

This is what Paul taught in Romans 9:14-18, which caused his opponent to say, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" To which Paul answers: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (Romans 9:20f).

More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.
_______
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

 

[glorydaz]

I have always enjoyed what John MacArther said about free will. He said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." I agree with that! I like that! We all loved our rebellion until God regenerates us and changes our free will so that we choose him. The one regenerated does not resist God, but wants God. He then loves the things of God. He chooses God.

Before I deny Irresistible Grace, I would have to see a verse that says that regeneration can be rejected by the will of man. Now of course, many non-Calvinists will not even know the difference between regeneration (A ministry of the HS in changing the nature of man) and salvation. Salvation includes justification (Romans & Galatians), imputation of righteousness (Romans 4), and the high priestly ministry of Christ in the atonement (book of Hebrews).

Regeneration is being born-again. It isn't that we don't see the difference, as you state, but that some don't agree with what you term regeneration. God draws all men, and He does it through the Word. When he hears the Word, which has life-giving power in itself, man can respond. That's why preaching the Gospel is so important.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

 

[Drew]

On the matter of the well known "pre-destinted to be conformed to the image of the Son" text from the end of Romans 8: While I will not, in the present post anyway, argue the point jn detail, I will assert the following: The Romans 8 text can be legitimately read as saying that God has fore-ordained that whoever freely accepts the offer of justification / salvation will most certainly be then conformed to the image of the Son.

 

[francisdesales]

I have always enjoyed what John MacArther said about free will. He said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." I agree with that! I like that!

"Let it be done to me according to your word" is a fine example of free will as it exists in the saints. We become neutral and allow God to work within us. We allow Him to move our wills and desires. This neutrality is in line with the Council of Orange, St. Augustine, and Sacred Scriptures.

What it also says is that we don't just choose which way to sin. We also can allow God to work within us, placing within us the desire and thought of even having a good desire.

"Do your work within me, Lord" vs. "I will not serve". It is indeed free will.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Before I deny Irresistible Grace, I would have to see a verse that says that regeneration can be rejected by the will of man. Now of course, many non-Calvinists will not even know the difference between regeneration (A ministry of the HS in changing the nature of man) and salvation. Salvation includes justification (Romans & Galatians), imputation of righteousness (Romans 4), and the high priestly ministry of Christ in the atonement (book of Hebrews).

Regeneration is being born-again. It isn't that we don't see the difference, as you state, but that some don't agree with what you term regeneration. God draws all men, and He does it through the Word. When he hears the Word, which has life-giving power in itself, man can respond. That's why preaching the Gospel is so important.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Yes, I suspect this is the doctrine that I was speaking of, Pelagiaism. Unfortunately, in protestantism it is common. True Arminianism is much closer to Calvinism then the doctrine you suggest, that God does not change mans nature. Correct me if I am wrong, but is not your doctrine a denial of original sin? Are not you more in line with Pelagius then Arminius when you suggest that regeneration has nothing to do with a change in mans nature by the HS?

Certainly no Calvinist would deny that the preaching of the Word of God and the Gospel is part of the path to faith. To suggest otherwise is to create a straw man. However, the preaching of the Word alone does not cause or define regeneration.

However, on the other hand, I think even your use of James 1:18 is flawed. That verse does not define the term "regeneration" at all. Notice in greek the term in James is not the same as the term in John.
18????????? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????????
The phrase in John 3 is "??? ?? ??? ??????? ??????."

The preaching of the Word, the Gospel, does not change the nature of man, if it did, then would not everyone we preach the gospel to be regenerate? Or should we be inconsistent on that point. Maybe you think regeneration is dependent on mans free will? The scripture says nothing of the sort.

The term of course is used in Titus 3:5... not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Is this verse not a denial that regeneration is by our works, or something "which we did ourselves,"
How can regeneration be dependent on man in any way in this verse?

The "washing of Regeneration" is alluded to in John 3 and 4.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

However, even in John 3 the concept of being born again is under the sovereign control of the HS, and not by the will of man.
8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 1 speaks of being born of God, and it is not by the will of man, but the will of God.
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

So are you pelagian?

 

[Drew]

I'd add that I think John Piper explains it pretty well:

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

This is what Paul taught in Romans 9:14-18, which caused his opponent to say, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" To which Paul answers: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (Romans 9:20f).

I disagree with Piper's take and instead think that theologian NT Wright has a better take on this text. This text from Romans 9 is not any kind of abstract general treatment of the indivual, but is rather much more concrete focused treatment of the rebellion of Israel as part of God's plans. I think that Romans 9 has been broadly misunderstood - it is really not about "pre-destination of individuals" or even anything else that is "generally" true. It is instead Paul's treatment of how God has paradoxically used Israel to effect the goal of extending salvation to Gentiles.