The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[OzSpen]

Reformed Theology leaves not an iota of boasting on man's part.

Soli Deo Gloria,

God bless,
William

William, I think that you need to become better informed about Arminian theology. I recommend this article to you, 'Arminianism is God-centered theology' by Roger E Olson, who teaches at the Southern Baptist, George W Truett Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX.

I'd recommend a read of Roger E Olson's book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic).

Oz

 

[ivdavid]

I see no reason to draw from this verse that the Philippian jailor's Salvation preceded his Faith, rather I see that his Faith resulted in his Salvation, at the instant of his Faith in Christ he received Salvation through Christ.
Again from this verse I see no reason to believe that those who heard the Word of God that day had their Salvation preceded by their Faith. Rather we see again that their Faith resulted in Salvation(John 6:47) and because of their Faith they were Baptized and received the Holy Spirit and assurance of their Salvation...

While discussing whether Regeneration precedes Faith or not, I notice you have synonymously interchanged Salvation for Regeneration - would you concede that they aren't exactly the same? Now I do concede there are several concepts that could amount to Salvation - say, if you mentioned someone received Justification before God, I'd say that's as good as them having received Salvation - or if you mentioned someone receiving Adoption unto the Father, I'd say that's as good as receiving Salvation too. But in all these cases, I'm not saying Justification=Salvation or Adoption=Salvation...I'm simply meaning Justification,Adoption etc. -> Salvation. Similarly, Regeneration, while not the same as Salvation, inevitably amounts to it.

Having made this distinction, I've again noticed you making the point - that Faith -> Salvation. Which is true. But we're trying to discuss whether Faith -> Regeneration or whether Regeneration -> Faith, and your point, though true in itself, seems to not address either position. Could you please elaborate more on how you see it, and what connections you've made in your belief system that are not yet apparent to me.

To avoid any confusions or ambiguity in semantics - let's also agree upon some working definitions wherever necessary. I'd start with Regeneration itself.
Regeneration, as what I hold, is the process of -
a) replacing man's stony heart with a new heart. (Eze 36:26)
b) making new his spirit. (Eze 18:31)
c) the soul being rebirthed in the spirit such that man is no longer in the flesh alone. (John 3:6, Rom 8:9)

Please tell me if this working definition needs to be modified to suit your beliefs too, or if this would suffice for now.

 

[childeye]

I find this discussion a fascinating study in semantic confusion. In this case, there is a fine line between blame and credit. Respectfully, I would say that Arminians embrace freewill so as to take the blame for evil and sin rather than put the blame upon God.

I would ask, what if creation is not to blame for sin, nor is God? Romans 8:20. Romans 4:8. What if blame is proportioned according to how much we blame others? Matthew 7:1-2. Romans 2:1. What happens to freewill then? Does it not serve a contradictory purpose?

 

[The_Epsicle]

Definitely not a bilateral conditional covenant. There are neither blessings nor cursings pronounced in Eden. The blessing was inherent in the fact that (a) God gave Adam authority over all creatures unconditionally (b) God fellowshipped with Adam unconditionally and (b) God gave Adam the gift of Eden unconditionally.

All he had to do was take good care of this gift and obey God's one single commandment (which was essentially a test). That was not "performance" but loving obedience which actually benefited him more than God.

So what you're saying is God would give him all of these things unconditionally... on one condition. That's a covenant Malachi.

I think you should state, 'the Calvinistic Reformed camp'. I'm in the Reformed camp but am not Calvinistic Reformed in my theology. You should be more careful to differentiate your position as that of a Calvinistic Reformed theology.

Oz

As a Lutheran I agree, in comparison to other protestants I am "catholic lite" and certainly different from a Calvinist or Arminian but we are all reformed. Heck even the Catholic Church is considered reformed since Vatican II.

While discussing whether Regeneration precedes Faith or not, I notice you have synonymously interchanged Salvation for Regeneration - would you concede that they aren't exactly the same? Now I do concede there are several concepts that could amount to Salvation - say, if you mentioned someone received Justification before God, I'd say that's as good as them having received Salvation - or if you mentioned someone receiving Adoption unto the Father, I'd say that's as good as receiving Salvation too. But in all these cases, I'm not saying Justification=Salvation or Adoption=Salvation...I'm simply meaning Justification,Adoption etc. -> Salvation. Similarly, Regeneration, while not the same as Salvation, inevitably amounts to it.

Having made this distinction, I've again noticed you making the point - that Faith -> Salvation. Which is true. But we're trying to discuss whether Faith -> Regeneration or whether Regeneration -> Faith, and your point, though true in itself, seems to not address either position. Could you please elaborate more on how you see it, and what connections you've made in your belief system that are not yet apparent to me.

To avoid any confusions or ambiguity in semantics - let's also agree upon some working definitions wherever necessary. I'd start with Regeneration itself.
Regeneration, as what I hold, is the process of -
a) replacing man's stony heart with a new heart. (Eze 36:26)
b) making new his spirit. (Eze 18:31)
c) the soul being rebirthed in the spirit such that man is no longer in the flesh alone. (John 3:6, Rom 8:9)

Please tell me if this working definition needs to be modified to suit your beliefs too, or if this would suffice for now.

I use regeneration, salvation and justification interchangeably, I see no reason to view the three as professing different doctrines unless you are willing to describe how this is. The definition will suit me fine. My position isn't Faith -> Salvation my position is Faith = Salvation, the Bible does not specify that one precedes the other but it only says that if you have Faith then you have Salvation. Faith does not lead to Salvation, Faith IS Salvation(Ephesians 2:8, John 3:16-18, Romans 3:23, Mark 16:16, Romans 5:1).

 

[OzSpen]

To avoid any confusions or ambiguity in semantics - let's also agree upon some working definitions wherever necessary. I'd start with Regeneration itself.
Regeneration, as what I hold, is the process of -
a) replacing man's stony heart with a new heart. (Eze 36:26)
b) making new his spirit. (Eze 18:31)
c) the soul being rebirthed in the spirit such that man is no longer in the flesh alone. (John 3:6, Rom 8:9)

Please tell me if this working definition needs to be modified to suit your beliefs too, or if this would suffice for now.

The Greek word for regeneration, paliggenesia appears only twice in the entire NT. According to Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon (1957:611) when applied to people it means 'rebirth of a redeemed person'. The two times it is used in the NT are:

1. Matt 19:28 (ESV), 'Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world [paliggenesia, i.e. in the regeneration], when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel'. This refers to 'the renewing of the world in the time of the Messiah ... in the new (Messianic) age or world' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:611).
2. Titus 3:5 (ESV), 'He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration [paliggenesia] and renewal of the Holy Spirit'. Here, paliggensia refers to 'the rebirth of a redeemed person.... regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:611).

So regeneration means the imparting of spiritual life by God to people who are 'dead in the trespasses and sins' (Eph 2:1 ESV). Therefore, we can conclude that regeneration refers to:

• receiving salvation ... 'he saved us' (Titus 3:5 ESV);
• God's imparting spiritual life to a person (Eph 2:1 ESV); and
• How does this happen? It is through the Holy Spirit's ministry of renewal of the sinful person (Titus 3:5 ESV).

Titus 3:5 (ESV) is a decisive verse: 'saved ... according to his own mercy ... by the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit). So, salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, based on this verse.

Oz

 

[ivdavid]

...the father saved the son and the son played no part in it, you might argue that the son grabbed hold of the rope and thus played a role in him being saved..

Yes, you have identified the crux of the problem.

Again, let's get some working definitions going...
Causation : The relationship between a first event(cause) and a second event(effect) where the first event is a contributing factor to bringing about the second.

Formal Cause: where the very form or essence of the object/event, results in the effect.
Eg: the sinfulness of the flesh is a Formal Cause of Judas' betraying Jesus.
Material Cause: where what it is made from, results in the effect.
Eg: God's creation of man from the dust of the ground(in the natural flesh) and His breath of life is Not the Material Cause of Judas' betraying Jesus.
Efficient Cause: where an Agent (a person's willful action), results in the effect.
Eg: Judas is the Efficient Cause of his betraying Jesus.
Instrumental Cause: where an instrument that's used, results in the effect.
Eg: The kiss was an Instrumental Cause in Judas' betraying Jesus.

Anything you disagree with, just put it out there and we'll discuss..

..I also take a monergistic view on Salvation..

I guess this stems from our valid need to uphold "All Glory to God alone" - and Glory is credited to the Efficient Causes alone as opposed to Instrumental causes etc. The doctrine of regeneration preceding faith serves to make God alone the Efficient Cause, for every other scenario has man also sharing credit as the Efficient Cause. As I've understood, you argue to show that man is not an Efficient Cause, hence upholding your monergistic view - have I got it right thus far?

...but the son would not have been able to grab the rope if the father had not given the choice to him(Ephesians 2:10), in this case handing him the rope, so this too is a fallacy and the son has still played no part in saving his life.

The rope is an Instrumental factor - with the father being the Efficient Cause behind the rope too. I agree.

Listing out all possible scenarios, with combinations of contributing causative factors and subsequent effects -
Case 1: The father does not throw down the rope at all, the boy has nothing to choose to hold on to, he drowns.
Case 2: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses to hold on, he is saved.
Case 3: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses to not hold on, he drowns.

I understand this method - where you compare the change in final effect according to the presence/absence of each cause across all scenarios, so as to determine the nature of each cause. So you compare Case1 and Case2 to conclude that the sole distinguishing factor is the father throwing down the rope and not the boy choosing to hold on, therein making the father alone the Efficient Cause. That's still not completely convincing, but I'll not contest it now.

But why haven't you compared Case2 and Case3 - where the sole distinguishing factor is the boy choosing to hold on, therein making him too part of the Efficient Cause? That's synergism right there, isn't it?

But of course, if you split Cases 2,3 in more detail -
Case 2: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses not to hold on, the father does not choose to have mercy in regenerating the boy, the boy continues to not hold on, he drowns.
Case 3: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses not to hold on, the father chooses to have mercy in regenerating the boy, the regenerated boy now chooses to hold on, he is saved.

Here, the father becomes the sole Efficient Cause - hence, monergism without denying the participation of the boy's willful choosing.

According to my belief-system, the doctrine of total depravity is what denies a further case where the boy chooses to hold on to the rope when first thrown - and it is this inhibiting sinfulness of the flesh that the Father overcomes in regenerating man in the spirit, wherein he inevitably chooses to hold on. But I realize you believe differently over these things - I think you hold the father's throwing down the rope and calling to his son itself as sufficient to overcome his sinfulness of the flesh, is it?

 

[The_Epsicle]

Yes, you have identified the crux of the problem.

Again, let's get some working definitions going...
Causation : The relationship between a first event(cause) and a second event(effect) where the first event is a contributing factor to bringing about the second.

Formal Cause: where the very form or essence of the object/event, results in the effect.
Eg: the sinfulness of the flesh is a Formal Cause of Judas' betraying Jesus.
Material Cause: where what it is made from, results in the effect.
Eg: God's creation of man from the dust of the ground(in the natural flesh) and His breath of life is Not the Material Cause of Judas' betraying Jesus.
Efficient Cause: where an Agent (a person's willful action), results in the effect.
Eg: Judas is the Efficient Cause of his betraying Jesus.
Instrumental Cause: where an instrument that's used, results in the effect.
Eg: The kiss was an Instrumental Cause in Judas' betraying Jesus.

Anything you disagree with, just put it out there and we'll discuss..

That's all good with me.

I guess this stems from our valid need to uphold "All Glory to God alone" - and Glory is credited to the Efficient Causes alone as opposed to Instrumental causes etc. The doctrine of regeneration preceding faith serves to make God alone the Efficient Cause, for every other scenario has man also sharing credit as the Efficient Cause. As I've understood, you argue to show that man is not an Efficient Cause, hence upholding your monergistic view - have I got it right thus far?

Yep!

The rope is an Instrumental factor - with the father being the Efficient Cause behind the rope too. I agree.

Listing out all possible scenarios, with combinations of contributing causative factors and subsequent effects -
Case 1: The father does not throw down the rope at all, the boy has nothing to choose to hold on to, he drowns.
Case 2: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses to hold on, he is saved.
Case 3: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses to not hold on, he drowns.

I understand this method - where you compare the change in final effect according to the presence/absence of each cause across all scenarios, so as to determine the nature of each cause. So you compare Case1 and Case2 to conclude that the sole distinguishing factor is the father throwing down the rope and not the boy choosing to hold on, therein making the father alone the Efficient Cause. That's still not completely convincing, but I'll not contest it now.

But why haven't you compared Case2 and Case3 - where the sole distinguishing factor is the boy choosing to hold on, therein making him too part of the Efficient Cause? That's synergism right there, isn't it?

But of course, if you split Cases 2,3 in more detail -
Case 2: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses not to hold on, the father does not choose to have mercy in regenerating the boy, the boy continues to not hold on, he drowns.
Case 3: The father throws down the rope, the boy chooses not to hold on, the father chooses to have mercy in regenerating the boy, the regenerated boy now chooses to hold on, he is saved.

Here, the father becomes the sole Efficient Cause - hence, monergism without denying the participation of the boy's willful choosing.

According to my belief-system, the doctrine of total depravity is what denies a further case where the boy chooses to hold on to the rope when first thrown - and it is this inhibiting sinfulness of the flesh that the Father overcomes in regenerating man in the spirit, wherein he inevitably chooses to hold on. But I realize you believe differently over these things - I think you hold the father's throwing down the rope and calling to his son itself as sufficient to overcome his sinfulness of the flesh, is it?

You are correct that is synergism, but the other option you leave me with means that God condemns people and offers them no possible way of being reconciled to him even though Christ's atonement was for all. I attempted to use the analogy but it has admitted flaws which is why as Lutherans we don't really try to answer this question. This is an FAQ on salvation from the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine#chose

 

[ivdavid]

Two things,
Using this verse to apply to the order of salvation, the Holy Spirit is given last, not first.
Regeneration is not complete without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That would place the disciples as unregenerate until the Acts 2 pentecost - I'm not too comfortable with that implication.
And those who believed in the name of Christ and were baptised in Acts 8:12 - I can't quite consider them unregenerate through Acts 8:14-15 until Acts 8:17.

I would suggest reading regeneration as concerning the rebirth in the spirit of man from being in the flesh, the beginning of the new creature's, the inner-man's spiritual life in Christ - to be distinct from the final sealing of the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13).

 

[ivdavid]

You are correct that is synergism, but the other option you leave me with means that God condemns people and offers them no possible way of being reconciled to him even though Christ's atonement was for all.

Yes, I'm aware of how the sides are stacked up. And by no means is this discussion meant to force anyone into picking sides. I'd be content with just bringing it to a point where all of us understand what the other person holds and why, understand the complexities behind that process and to respectfully concede doctrinal differences when we aren't able to find clear answers provided in Scripture to satisfy all here.

Let's keep reminding ourselves of what we all do agree upon. All glory ought to be to God alone, in that we do agree upon monergism. And likewise, we do agree that God cannot be unjust or partial and hence His offer of atonement cannot be limited. What is wrong in believing both these truths about God - since these are well established from Scripture itself. I believe all seeming contradictions will be shown to be only clever paradoxes in the end - where each of us would have been right and wrong at the same time while we picked sides.

 

[ivdavid]

I would ask, what if creation is not to blame for sin, nor is God? Romans 8:20. Romans 4:8. What if blame is proportioned according to how much we blame others?

Our blaming others itself is on account of Sin in the flesh, isn't it? Besides, Rom 4:8 does proclaim the blessing in how God does not impute sin to us - but that's because He's imputed it to Christ and not because there is no sin at all to impute. And where Sin is, there must be blame - why must not the sinful Self then bear blame?

 

[ivdavid]

Fundamentally speaking, the body and mind are hardwired to try to avoid anything we deem to be unpleasant.

I agree with this entire post. A difficult read for those who might not know where you're coming from. Extending this, when we talk about making a choice - will we not necessarily choose the option that we counsel will give us most pleasure/least pain according to our set of desires, to do, at that point in time? Aren't our choices then completely dependent on what we desire and counsel and have power to do?

Where do our desires come from - are we consciously generating each one, or is our conscious mind only a receptor of such thoughts generated from our own nature? How did I now suddenly want to have some ice cream, when I wasn't meditating on it at all prior to this, neither had any related thought trigger this? And where does my counsel come from - did I consciously evaluate the strengths and priorities of every single possibility or was my conscious mind only a receptor of the final understanding rendered by my nature? How did I get reminded consequently of the interview I have to attend the next day without incurring a hoarse voice which I'm susceptible to - in correlation to this desire, thereby raising a negative inclination - when I wasn't aware of any such attempts to consciously correlate the two? And how is my final counsel still to eat some ice cream, which I do - if not for my counsel to have weighed in favour of the immediate pleasure opposed to the later pain?

However, most of what we would deem as pleasure or pain through the carnal mind, is more the product of imaginary hopes and fears.

Is there such a thing as a mind of the flesh - or is it just describing our mind at the time it's paying attention to the fleshly sensations? Could the flesh counsel us - and alternately, could our mind not pay attention to fleshly sensations while still in the flesh?

 

[ivdavid]

I recommend this article to you, 'Arminianism is God-centered theology' by Roger E Olson

" First, human depravity must be emphasized as much as possible so that humans are not capable, even with supernatural, divine assistance, of cooperating with God’s grace in salvation. In other words, grace must be irresistible."

Well, I don't know if I am a calvinist - I seem to believe some of their doctrines, I hold on to single predestination, I believe in Christ's sacrifice for every single person and limited atonement and yes, I'm still quite sane. Anyway, I'd like to respond to certain points made by the Arminian.

It's not that human depravity must be emphasized to that extent - it's simply the nature of the divine assistance he holds to, that I disagree with. I do believe in the problem of human depravity - and the remedy for that problem is God's supernatural work by grace, which I do believe man can and will cooperate with. But what is that work itself - is it a soft whisper in your ear, is it a loud call from the pulpit, is it a timely verse given, is it a strong sense of guilt raised, is it exhortation, is it pleading, or any such thing? Given the sinfulness of the flesh(Rom 7:14,18), and its unprofitability(John 6:63) - none of these suffice for the flesh to change, And yet any one of these are more than sufficient to elicit obedience of man in the spirit. Since human depravity applies to the flesh alone - and what purpose is served in making the flesh that won't inherit the Kingdom of God, any better - reason stands to conclude that God's purposes are not wasted here(Rom 8:12, 1Cor 1:29), but in nurturing the spirit He quickens(John 3:6).

So it is not that I start with Grace, and somehow want/require it to be irresistible - I start with the sinful flesh that's continually in enmity with God and see that there is no alternative but for this flesh to be denied and overcome in order for that man to cooperate with God's Grace.


"Another way of saying this is that God must overwhelm elect sinners and compel them to accept his mercy without any cooperation, even non-resistance, on their parts. "

Why the dramatism? Yes, as seen from the previous point, I do hold that sinful flesh must be "overwhelmed" in being birthed in the spirit, for the flesh is in rebellion and will never be tamed(Rom 8:7-8) - but why must I be heard saying that man's choices and affections too must be overwhelmed - it is but a natural consequence of what the new heart that is not stony and the new spirit does. The new creature does all this quite willingly.

 

[williamt]

"Another way of saying this is that God must overwhelm elect sinners and compel them to accept his mercy without any cooperation, even non-resistance, on their parts. "

There's a difference between common grace and effectual grace:
Irresistible Grace also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ." This is not to deny the fact that the Spirit’s outward call (through the proclamation of the Gospel) can be, and often is, rejected by sinners; rather, it’s that inward call which cannot be rejected. In fact, every saved person can testify how, at some point in their life, they “felt overwhelmingly compelled” to believe in Christ, as if they “had no choice but to follow Him.” This is what is meant by the effectual calling of God.

I believe all seeming contradictions will be shown to be only clever paradoxes in the end - where each of us would have been right and wrong at the same time while we picked sides.

Some of those contradictions were addressed by the "Particular" Baptist Charles Spurgeon:

God bless,
William

 

[Malachi]

...I would say that Arminians embrace freewill so as to take the blame for evil and sin rather than put the blame upon God.

That is not really the main issue. And if anyone should be blamed it is Adam. It is God Himself who desires that the offer of salvation be freely responded to because it is a free gift (Isa 55:1-7). And in any event He created men (Gen 1:26,27) and angels with free will for His own eternal purposes.
1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David...
6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

 

[Deborah13]

That would place the disciples as unregenerate until the Acts 2 pentecost -

Please correct me if I am wrong here.....
I don't think so. They received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. I don't see anywhere that they were indwelled by the Holy Spirit before this verse. We might take notice here that Judas never was given the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
Joh 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Pentecost was something different.

And those who believed in the name of Christ and were baptised in Acts 8:12 - I can't quite consider them unregenerate through Acts 8:14-15 until Acts 8:17.

We have no record of when they were baptised or who baptised them, that I can think of.

 

[Malachi]

We have no record of when they were baptised or who baptised them, that I can think of.

While not stated explicitly, the apostles were baptized by John the Baptizer. They were disciples of John who were directed to the Lamb of God by John himself.

 

[The_Epsicle]

There's a difference between common grace and effectual grace:
Irresistible Grace also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ." This is not to deny the fact that the Spirit’s outward call (through the proclamation of the Gospel) can be, and often is, rejected by sinners; rather, it’s that inward call which cannot be rejected. In fact, every saved person can testify how, at some point in their life, they “felt overwhelmingly compelled” to believe in Christ, as if they “had no choice but to follow Him.” This is what is meant by the effectual calling of God.

The Bible does not say that Grace is irresistible, or that there is one kind of Grace for believers and another for unbelievers but only one of those Graces has the power to save. God died for all sinners and all sins past present and future(1 Peter 3:18 ESV, 1 Timothy 1:15 ESV) the Bible also says that those who believe only believe because of God(1 Corinthians 12:3), the Holy Spirit works God's Grace through these three things which I have mentioned previously in this thread:

1. The Word of God either written or spoken(Matthew 7:24 ESV, John 3:16-21 ESV, John 5:24 ESV, 1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV, James 1:21 ESV, Matthew 18:20 ESV)
2. The true body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion (Matthew 26:28 ESV, Luke 22:14-20 ESV, Ephesians 1:7 ESV, Hebrews 9:22 ESV)
3. Baptism (Matthew 28:16-20 ESV, 1 Peter 3:21 ESV, Hebrews 10:22 ESV, Mark 16:16 ESV, Acts 2:38 ESV, Romans 6:4 ESV)

People resist the Word of God all the time so it is obviously not irresistible, in fact it is offensive(1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV, Galatians 5:11 ESV). The Bible also says that people can resist God's calling(2 Kings 17:14 ESV) and since the Bible does not differentiate between two kinds of Grace(John 1:17 ESV, Acts 4:12 ESV) then we are left with a paradox. If we accept God then we owe our Faith to God alone, but if we reject God we cannot blame God for not giving us Faith but we only have ourselves to blame(Luke 16:29-31 ESV). This cannot be explained using human logic and it shouldn't(2 Corinthians 4:2 ESV) because we will always end up with a heresy that either denies that God's Grace was for all, or that we fallible humans can choose God of our own will, both of which are incorrect and have no basis in scripture.

Regardless, please provide scripture references for why you believe what you believe. Otherwise I'm forced to deal with it only as an opinion that is not based in fact.

 

[Deborah13]

While not stated explicitly, the apostles were baptized by John the Baptizer. They were disciples of John who were directed to the Lamb of God by John himself.

Not trying to put you on the spot here, but where is the scripture for that, please.

 

[williamt]

The Bible does not say that Grace is irresistible...

Regardless, please provide scripture references for why you believe what you believe. Otherwise I'm forced to deal with it only as an opinion that is not based in fact.

To clarify, before I spend any further time in this post, would Scriptural proof change your mind? Secondly, are you contending that a dead man can resist? If not are you contending only after Regeneration a man can or cannot resist? and lastly, have you distinguished between an inward and outward call of the Holy Spirit? I provided a brief synopsis of the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace, to which you disagree, and further went on to say:

This cannot be explained using human logic and it shouldn't(2 Corinthians 4:2 ESV) because we will always end up with a heresy that either denies that God's Grace was for all, or that we fallible humans can choose God of our own will, both of which are incorrect and have no basis in scripture.

To which I say you have began with a false premise. Your argument is however, applaudable, because it is the classical argument made by followers of Jacob Arminius. I say followers, because Arminius was actually a Calvinist and never published a work in his life time, nor did he plead guilty to charges of heresy but only reaffirm the wide umbrella of the Reformed position. It wasn't until after his death that his works were discovered and those believing Arminius were called Arminians.

And I would like to reemphasize and acknowledge your lack of logic and application of it.

God bless,
William

 

[Deborah13]

There's a difference between common grace and effectual grace:

Can you give any scripture that says that God gives two different Gospels calls to man?
Or is this just a doctrine made, in an attempt to explain why all men do not receive the Christ as their Savior?