The Philosophy of Irresistible Grace

[mondar]

Augustine did have a time when he considered Manichaeism during his pagan life. He rejected Manicheaeism long before his conversion. While still a pagan he first converted to neo-platonic thought while teaching in Milan. After his conversion he renounced his teaching position in Milan and returned to Hippo. While at Hippo Augustine did make reference to the Manichaen position when he wrote an apologetic against them. To suggest that in these works he tried to blend Christianity and Manichaeism is just a silly assertion that has no historical basis. Augustine was profoundly impacted by the epistle of Romans, he had access to it and other Christian writings. It should be admitted that he was influenced by platonism and neoplatonic philosophy as many of the other Church Fathers were. He was also influenced by Stoicism since he remained unmarried throughout his life. Manichaeism simply was not a part of Augustine's thinking after his conversion.

Augustine never once used the term "unconditional election" in his writings. While he refered to election, nowhere did he use the term "unconditional election." That would be reading a 17th century debate back into the 5th century and would be totally unhistorical. Augustine's main issues involved a "just war" and the issue of "original sin." The concept of original sin came out of his debate with the Pelagian heresy. However, some scholars think Pelagius actually did teach prevenient grace (see wiki on Pelagianism). The issue of the teachings of Pelagius are in doubt because his works have not survived. He is generally accused of denying the concept of original sin.

The above information is common information that can be found by simply googling "Augustine of Hippo." No reputable scholar disputes this information to the extent of my knowledge. If you wish, you can access wiki here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
Or you can do your own google search and simply read.

 

[mondar]

As you say, we choose in accordance with our natures. So I am inclined to say that saved saints in heaven are still free, but their nature is such that they almost certainly will not choose to reject God. But I actually see nothing in the scriptures that requires us to see “heaven†or what comes after – resurrection life here on earth – as without “problemsâ€. There is scriptural evidence that “heaven†is still a “projectâ€. So I actually do not a problem with granting the unlikely possibility that someone in “heaven†might “turn awayâ€.

Interesting. I must admit that I did not expect you to admit this. To be consistent, you have to admit that the possibility that in eternity God might take a person out of heaven and put him in hell. And does not such a theology truly speak of the insufficiency of Christs blood to totally save? I think that is the issue. I of course take the position that Christ shed blood alone saves and that we can add nothing to it.

 

[Drew]

To be consistent, you have to admit that the possibility that in eternity God might take a person out of heaven and put him in hell.

\
I do not see why I have to admit to such a possibility. As I have suggested, and as the scriptures attest (e.g. through the "healing of the nations" text in Revelation), the world to come is indeed a project. So there is no necessity that we need to have the possibilitly you refer to.

 

[mondar]

To be consistent, you have to admit that the possibility that in eternity God might take a person out of heaven and put him in hell.

\
I do not see why I have to admit to such a possibility. As I have suggested, and as the scriptures attest (e.g. through the "healing of the nations" text in Revelation), the world to come is indeed a project. So there is no necessity that we need to have the possibilitly you refer to.

OK, sometimes thing get confusing. Let me tell you what I am hearing.

First, when I read you saying...

For Paul, then, a statement that “salvation is by grace alone†is equivalent to saying “The freedom of choice that is entailed by creaturehood in God’s image is a non-negotiable a priori: Given this, I (Paul) assert that the achievement of human salvation is otherwise entirely the work of Godâ€.

In the above statement, you say that "creaturehood in God's image" involves "freedom of choice." Now I grant that you could have the prevenient grace view that God universally regenerates all people who ever lived to a position of free will. That would not be revelant to my question because what I am asking relates to our "creaturehood in God's image" when we are in heaven. So then if this image on earth is a part of our humanity, when we go to eternity, we should still have this free will, right? So then we can choose rebellion in heaven, or obedience in hell. If we make such a choice on earth, when we die, God sends us to heaven or hell. So then, if we continue to have free will in eternity, will God continues to move us back and forth from heaven to hell, and hell to heaven based upon our most recent decision? If not, what changes? Is it us? Are we somehow less human? Do we loose our "creaturehood in God's image" eternity and become subhuman robots in eternity? (please excuse the irony here... : ), you know this is a common slam on me.... and yes, I did enjoy using the term robot here).


Also you said.....

So I am inclined to say that saved saints in heaven are still free, but their nature is such that they almost certainly will not choose to reject God. But I actually see nothing in the scriptures that requires us to see “heaven†or what comes after – resurrection life here on earth – as without “problemsâ€. There is scriptural evidence that “heaven†is still a “projectâ€. So I actually do not a problem with granting the unlikely possibility that someone in “heaven†might “turn awayâ€.

If someone in heaven "turns away" they are then what? So then we go to hell for turning away on Earth, but not in heaven? And what if one accepts God in hell? Does he remain in hell or can he then go to heaven?

And in all this you still feel that the crosswork of Christ, or the grace of God is sufficient for salvation? If Grace is sufficient for salvation, then how can a person in heaven "turn away?" If Grace is sufficient how can a person on earth "turn away." If Grace does not bring us to peace with God, and heaven, then it is not sufficient.... right?

So in all this, why do you not have to admit that the possibility that one can go to hell after being in heaven?

 

[glorydaz]

There will be no turning away in heaven. We will freely choose to obey because we will be like Him, and we won't be saddled with this sinful flesh....not will the workers of iniquity be there.

Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[mondar]

There will be no turning away in heaven. We will freely choose to obey because we will be like Him, and we won't be saddled with this sinful flesh....not will the workers of iniquity be there.

Thank you, but I think everyone believes that. Are you following the whole conversation?

 

[Vince]

Like most Protestant Reformers, John Calvin was a brilliant man with extensive training in a theological blend of Christianity and paganism. So befuddled by Scripture that they couldn't even grasp a simple doctrine like baptism, they accepted St. Augustine's claim that he had been saved by faith. As a group, they labored to blend Augustinianism, Catholicism, and Christianity into a new and better religion, producing a contradictory set of denominations known as Protestantism.

St. Augustine's belief in the Manichaean doctrine of unconditional election produced some confusion, but most of the Reformers got over it. Not so with Calvin, who accepted Mani's doctrine whole-heartedly. Augustine had "Christianized" unconditional election, but not enough to make it acceptable to Christians. Calvin "Christianized" the doctrine even farther. Then, helped by fears of a Catholic military threat, Calvinism gained government support. Using Augustine's teaching that Christians were required to persecute those who disagreed with them, Calvinists ended freedom of religion wherever they could, establishing geographical areas where genuine study and preaching of Scriptures was forbidden.

And, like St. Augustine before him, John Calvin missed a major philosophical flaw in his system.

 

[mondar]

glorydaz, I must admit that I would prefer that you stay out of the conversation between Drew and myself. The reason for this wish is because your not getting what is being said. In the quote you cut from my post above, you see to think I am arguing that one can "turn away" in heaven. I am not. Actually I am making a point with regard to Drew's view that a part of being human is to have free will because we are in the image of God. So then, to be consistent, Drew has to admit that in eternity, we either do not have free will, and therefore are not human, or we can go back and forth between faith and no faith, or heaven and hell. It was a point of consistency. You are just simply not following the conversation. I suspect even after this explaination, you will not get it for one of two reasons.....

One possible reason could be that you think that it is a service to God to say nasty or disrespectful things to people you consider heretics, especially those Calvinist heretics. With such an attitude, you do not read closely, the only job you think you have is to be argumentative with the worse of heretics that you know. Of course I am going to think that anyone with such an attitude is a dangerous person. Such a person will never make sense and will only say nasty disrespectful things. I must admit that I completely despair of any intelligent worth while conversation with such a person. I really do not know what to do with this kind of person. I often say nasty rude things back, but that should not be. The other think I try to do is ignore them, but that is obviously hard for me. I suspect you of being this kind of "I am serving God by being rude to the Calvinist heretic" kind of person. Are you? Do you feel you can say anything you want, just as long as it is negative. Do you feel you do not have to read what I am saying close enough to actually get it?

The other possibility is that you are merely just so shallow that you do not have the ability to follow the conversation.

Or maybe both?

Please read the conversation correctly before making comments... OK?

 

[glorydaz]

No, it's not okay. It isn't up to you to dictate what another person can post. I'm not the one that called you ignorant or "shallow". Now you can make all the excuses you want for your bad behavior...even saying it's mine and not yours. That doesn't make it true, however.

As I said before...I'm not interested in the name tags you attach to people. I'm simply interested in what the Bible says...not your opinions. The subject is irresistible grace and I will post whenever I see fit, unless I'm banned by a moderator. To claim God's grace cannot be resisted by man is a topic I choose to refute...with the Word of God..like it or not. Such a doctrine, as I see it, goes against the very character of God...so, of course, I will speak against it.

God expects man to choose to obey.

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[mondar]

No, it's not okay. It isn't up to you to dictate what another person can post. I'm not the one that called you ignorant or "shallow". Now you can make all the excuses you want for your bad behavior...even saying it's mine and not yours. That doesn't make it true, however.

As I said before...I'm not interested in the name tags you attach to people. I'm simply interested in what the Bible says...not your opinions. The subject is irresistible grace and I will post whenever I see fit, unless I'm banned by a moderator. To claim God's grace cannot be resisted by man is a topic I choose to refute...with the Word of God..like it or not. Such a doctrine, as I see it, goes against the very character of God...so, of course, I will speak against it.

God expects man to choose to obey.

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

[quote="Joshua 24:15":j1qpq1lb] And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

[/quote:j1qpq1lb]
LOL, its a free site. Anyone that knows nothing about the subject can say anything stupid that they want. You dont even know what Irresistable Grace means.

 

[Drew]

OK, sometimes thing get confusing. Let me tell you what I am hearing.
.
.
So in all this, why do you not have to admit that the possibility that one can go to hell after being in heaven?

I agree with the general principle that our "freedom" is highly constrained and limited. As you know, I see no scriptural case against the possibilty that fallen man cannot "freely" reach out and accept grace. Once he does that, he is then given the Spirit which transforms him into a more Christlike person. So when he gets "to heaven", his very nature is such that he has "lost" the freedom to reject God.

You seem to read me as asserting that a hallmark of creature-hood is the freedom to do anything at all. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Creature-hood, on my view, necessarily entails some degree of self-determining freedom. But a person in heaven who has been transformed such that it is basically impossible to "choose" rebellion still retains freedom in many other respects. So I would say that they have not lost their creaturehood.

 

[glorydaz]

LOL, its a free site. Anyone that knows nothing about the subject can say anything stupid that they want. You dont even know what Irresistable Grace means.

As I said when you posted this bit...your "definitions" are faulty. :biglaugh

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).

You claim many non-Calvinists don't know the difference between regeneration and salvation. That, of course, means you believe you are the holder of all truth in the matter. So those who don't buy your beliefs on original sin, and when regeneration takes place are just naturally wrong about grace and the elect. Irresistible grace, therefore, must go hand in glove with your view of other doctrines that are not supported by the Word of God. Since you don't know when regeneration takes place, you can't know whether grace can be resisted. In fact, you don't seem to know the meaning of grace, much less whether it can be resisted by man.

All men are drawn...not those already regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The grace of God is given to all men that they may "choose" life.

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

The grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
The saving grace of God can be resisted.

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

 

[mondar]

You seem to read me as asserting that a hallmark of creature-hood is the freedom to do anything at all. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Creature-hood, on my view, necessarily entails some degree of self-determining freedom. But a person in heaven who has been transformed such that it is basically impossible to "choose" rebellion still retains freedom in many other respects. So I would say that they have not lost their creaturehood.

Drew, maybe I am parsing and analyzing your words too much. On the other hand, maybe you are struggling with free will and the objection I presented. In any case, you going to have to explain more what you are saying. Some of your words seem to have wiggle room to go either way.

You say that a person can have an "image of God" humanity but still be "transformed" to the extent that it is "basically impossible" for him to "choose" (or rebel). When you use terms like "basically impossible"... I wonder if you are saying that it is ---nearly impossible, but not completely so.--- Or are you saying that it is impossible for a man in heaven to choose evil? Then men do not have free will in heaven and man cannot be "image of God" humanity. That is unless you say that image of God humanity does not include free will choices.

I do hear a part of what you are saying... you seem also to be saying that there is not total free will and that men in heaven must be inclinded to obedience.

Drew, there are many concepts attached to this discussion. Free will is one, but original sin is another. What was the nature of man (Adam) in innocence? What happened to mans nature in the fall? What happened to mans nature at regeneration (and is regeneration universal, or limited---is regeneration resistable or irresistable). There is also glorification... what happens to mankind as they go into eternity. In each phase of humanities experience we had a different nature. I know that one can affirm "free will" and yet still not make it a part of the "image of God" in man's nature. However, once you use language like that, then you need to bear the consequences of logically seeing man's free will in eternity future. Once you make the "image of God" equal to free will, it does not seem to me like it leaves you any real wiggle room for much change in heaven.

So then, can you explain your view of the nature of God in heaven with regard to the image of God and man's free will in heaven?

 

[mondar]

You claim many non-Calvinists don't know the difference between regeneration and salvation.

True

That, of course, means you believe you are the holder of all truth in the matter.

Bang slam----

So those who don't buy your beliefs on original sin, and when regeneration takes place are just naturally wrong about grace and the elect.

You don like Augustines concept of original sin? Neither did Pelagius.

Irresistible grace, therefore, must go hand in glove with your view of other doctrines that are not supported by the Word of God. Since you don't know when regeneration takes place, you can't know whether grace can be resisted. In fact, you don't seem to know the meaning of grace, much less whether it can be resisted by man.

Grace:
My view---- God does the work of salvation, and gives favor to individuals.
glorydaz---- God's does part of the work of salvation, and then provides grace to no individuals. By your own righteous decision you have to appropriate this theoretical grace that is not given to anyone specificly, but made available to anyone in potential. Therefore it is not grace at all, but potential grace. It take a little bit of righteousness by man in a correct decision to appropriate this potential grace.

You know what, it makes little sense for you and me to talk. Would it not be better if we just separate and ignore each other? What profit would any conversation be between us? If I gave you the last word, would you then ignore me? If you do, its a deal.

All men are drawn...not those already regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The grace of God is given to all men that they may "choose" life.
[quote="John 5:40":23hb1796] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

The grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
The saving grace of God can be resisted.

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

[/quote:23hb1796]
The problem here is you want to recite that you tradition has certain proof texts. Of course they are not read in context. Would you like me to go through each of those context and explain why each context cannot be interpreted in the way you suggest? Would you be interested in seeing why your tradition misreads the context of each passage? My guess is that you just want to say nasty things to the Calvinist heretic. I do mean this offer. I will go through each context and explain the context if you wish. Do you want that?

 

[glorydaz]

Grace:
My view---- God does the work of salvation, and gives favor to individuals.
glorydaz---- God's does part of the work of salvation, and then provides grace to no individuals. By your own righteous decision you have to appropriate this theoretical grace that is not given to anyone specificly, but made available to anyone in potential. Therefore it is not grace at all, but potential grace. It take a little bit of righteousness by man in a correct decision to appropriate this potential grace.

This is a blatant lie. Don't tell me what I believe. You obviously wouldn't recognize the truth if it was staring you in the face. God's grace is for all men. So for you to falsely accuse me of saying it's for none is just plain ignorant. It takes no righteousness by man to believe. Believing has nothing to do with man's righteousness...it has to do with the power of the Gospel. Faith comes by hearing the Word. I realize you hate that idea since you want only a select few to be saved, but, fortunately, God sees things differently than you do.
The problem here is you want to recite that you tradition has certain proof texts. Of course they are not read in context. Would you like me to go through each of those context and explain why each context cannot be interpreted in the way you suggest? Would you be interested in seeing why your tradition misreads the context of each passage? My guess is that you just want to say nasty things to the Calvinist heretic. I do mean this offer. I will go through each context and explain the context if you wish. Do you want that?

If you think for a minute I'll listen to your "explanation" about anything pertaining to the Gospel, you're sadly mistaken. I've already seen clearly the error you promote. I'm not some little newbie you can indoctrinate into your false teaching. The Bible is quite clear and not in need of interpretation by men who have an elitist idea of salvation. You are certainly free to rely on your "truth according to Calvin" if you like, but I can see from what you're teaching that it's not the Truth. There is only one Truth and it's amazingly clear to those who have even the most simple faith. Grace is not some mystery...nor is the Gospel message hard to understand. I do have to laugh when I see the twisting and turning some go through to turn it into something that needs to be "explained". Put me on ignore if you can't stand being disagreed with....I'll continue to post however I see fit.

 

[Vic C.]

Sorry, but I'm just not liking the tone of this conversation.